<<

HISTORIA: International Journal of History Education, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (June 2012)

THE HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL FROM CRITICISM TO EMANCIPATION MOVEMENT

Damanhuri Fatah1

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the modern society’s major basic idea which has been uphold by Frankfurt School, that is, the crisis of enlightenment, of art and , and of history. The school is trying to reunite concretely branches of in social sciences which have been broken down into pieces without sacrificing their good points. The school also intellectually and socially redefines in its period. The Frankfurt School of the first period was claimed to have been deadlock in taking part in solving the problem of modern world. The works of , Horkheimer, Adorno, as well as are the severe criticisms on and . According to them, both have interfered modern society as uncovered in the instrumental and technological . The critical tradition previously developed by Marx tried to uproot the hidden system in a certain that had made the society’s creative thinking less interisting. It means that the system which developed at that time was in fact the place where ideological interests of certain parties hid. Marx intended to uproot these interests which was the continued by the Frankfurt School community which was known for their ideological criticism.

Key Words: , Frankfurt School, Habermas, Emancipation

1Damanhuri Fatah, lecturer of IAIN Radean Intan Lampung. For academic interest, the author can be contacted at office address: Jl. Letkol H. Endro Suratmin Sukarame, Bandar Lampung.

95 damanhuri fatah, The History of the Frankfrut School From Critism to Emancipation Movement

Introduction 3. Third, influenced by a new interpretation of Marxism by Georg There are three common names of Lukács and in accordance Frankfrut School, without any particular with the problems of that time. The : Institut for Sozialforshsung, reflection concept of Lukacs becomes Critical , and Frankfrut School central. (Kolakowsky, 1978 : 341 – 343). The 4. Fourth, emphasizing on autonomous founder of the institute was a political and object to directly involved expert named Felix J. Weil. He was the son (in practical political movement). The of a tycoon, Herman Weil, who had spent all criticism over the society is limited of his assets for funding social reseraches, only on academic movement, trying particularly to revive the Mrax doctrin to to transform the social through be restructured in accordance with the era science. (Wiggershaus, 1994: 9, 12-13, 16-17). 5. Fifth, this School accepts some of At first it was the Institute for Marx’s theory such as the exploitation Sozialforschung (Institute for Social and alienation of labor; however, some Research) which was founded in the early views are objected, for example, class 1923 in Frankfurt, as one of the majors in consciousness and revolution. The Frankfurt University. The Institute’s first refication concept applied to all levels director was Carl Grunberg. They had in the Marx’s class division (bourgeois encountered a cultural crisis since 1890 with and proletarian classes). the rapid growth of in . The German Institute brought this issue to 6. Sixth, this school is the Revisionist the exile and later returned to Germany movement of , after the war with the new designation of and a revolutionary intellectuals “Frankfurt School”. In such conditions, the (Kolakowsky, 1978: 341-343) Institute was still established, therefore, it The early figures are Preidrich Pollock is needed to be noted down and study all (1894-1970, an economist), Carl Grunber the six characteritic of the school: (1861-1940, the first director of the 1. First, using Marxism not as the basic Institute), (1895-1973, norm (ideology), but only as a starting philosopher, sociologist, psychologist, point and support for analysis and the scond director of the Institute), Karl cultural criticism. Hence the critical Wittfogel ( born in 1869, historian, who analysis models of non-Marxis (Hegel, view the Marxism influence in Asia), Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Spengler, Wiesengrund Theodor Adorno (1903- Freud, and Judaism) has become the 1970, philosopher, sociologist, the third choice. director of the Institute), Leo Lowenthal (born in 1900, a sociologist), Walter 2. Second, the programs structured Benjamin (1892-1940, literary ), are the programs expressing critical Frank Neumann, (law expert), Hendryk characteristics, and is non party (not Grossman (1881-1950, economists and part of a political movement). political), Arkadij Gurland (economy and

96 HISTORIA: International Journal of History Education, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (June 2012) socialogy expert). They are the leaders of revival of Marxism after World War I. This the Institute for Social Research school of social interests is to uncover the The school would like to try a more ideology of criticism and rejected claims of concrete way to reunite branches of absolute validity. knowledge in the social sciences that had The term “Frankfurt School” came into been fragmented without sacrificing its use around 1950 to refer back to the above positivity. The school also tried to redefine Institute (Kolakowsky, 1978: 341). The term Marxism at that time intellectually and is synonymous with the redevelopment socially. of the Institute after the war. The figures In the early 1930 the Institute released of Frankfrut School diminishing because their interest on labor movements. During many of them never returned from exile that time Marx Horkheimer was replacing and no one returned to East Germany. Carl Grunberg position and become the They are Horkheimer, Adorno, Pollock, leader of Zeitschrift fur Sozialforschung, Marcuse, Lowenthal (two of them, Marcuse a journal for Social Research) to replace and Lowenthal lived in the U.S.) the journals by Carl Grunberg, Archiv fur The term “” refers to die Geschicte des Sozialismus und der the paper of Horheimer, Kritische Theorie, Arbeiterbewegng ( on History which was written in 1937 and published of and the Labour Movement). in the Journal and republished in 1968. The main analysis subject was shifted from This paper talks about the projects of class analysis to culture and authority the Institute. The figures often called as analysis. He “academized” politics (Gillian the first generation of Critical Theory are Rose, 1978: 2). Then the critical element in Max Horkaeimer, Theodor Adorno, and the historical process requires dealing with Herbert Marcuse. While Jurgen Habermas German authorities. is a Second Generation Critical Theory who Under the leadership of Horkheimer has a similar point of view with Lukacs both in Germany and during exile and Korsch in his interest in the legacy of (United States), the instituion which had German , but in some cases they emphasized the conservatism and science were also regarded as the successor to the during Carl Grunberg time, shifted their spirit of the Left Wing in 1840 objective to emphasizing social research, (Jay, 1973: 43-44), technically and theoretically. Most articles The emerge of Frankrurt School is of this school appeared in the themes closely related to the views of Karl Marx that complained about the knowledge and his successors (Marxist), especially fragmentation during that time, the idea which is known as of totality as the missing perspective, the Critical Marxism (Neo-Marxism). resistance to positivism, and symptoms This school emerged as a reaction to the to return to the tradition of Gillian Rose, restriction of Karl Marx doctrins which was (1978: 2). This emphasis illustrates the fears the ideology of the Communist Party of the of German academics against capitalism. Soviet Union (Arato and Gebhardt, 1978: The particularity of Frankfurt School is 4-18). Many German academics reject the that it was always against idealism and the pro-Soviet Communist Party developed in

97 damanhuri fatah, The History of the Frankfrut School From Critism to Emancipation Movement

Germany for betraying the doctrin of Marx Communist Party. His work Marxismus and the Social Democratic Party who lost und Philosophie (1923) (Marxism and his Marxist . As a result they tried to ), explaining that the doctrine define the Marx doctrine in accordance with of Marxism is a theory of his time with the the era. During that time they review the material conditions that exist in society. doctrin of Hegel which resurfaced idealism Another figure, such as Antonio Gramschi in Germany. The figures of the first wave called the view of the two figures mentioned of Neo-Maxis are including George Lukacs above as the “philosophy of ” as it (1885-1971), (1885-1974), and attempts to connect theory and praxis based Karl Korsch (1889-1963). on the doctrin of Marxism and German George Lukacs was actually the Idealism (Hegel) (Arato, 1982: 5). David Hungarian Communist Party activist. His Ryazanoov the director of Marx-Engels work, Geschichte und Klassenbewusstein Institute in Moscow published the Paris (1923) (History and ) Manuscript in 1932 which distribution was emphasizes on the awareness of proletarian prohibited by the Marxists who want to re- class and excluding the automatic element define the Marx doctrines in accordance (by itself) towards the history of capitalism with the era (Winggershaus, 1994: 31-32, that ended in accordance with Marxism 615). Ortodiks. According to Lukacs, the supra- However, the political situation under structure existed, the knowledge and communist during that time tested their ideology, need to be activated in order to views validity. Lukacs finally denied his enble changes (Wiggershaus, 1994: 15). views under the threat of the authority Ernist Bloch bought a big theme in his which at that time was on the hand of the philosophical effort in the form of. The Communist Party, while Korsch who did not theme was connected with the matter of want to deny his theory had to relinquish his ‘hope’. According to Bloch human life is membership in the Communist Party. The intrinsically utopias. Utopia is a dream or First Wave of Critical Marxism had faded. human shadow about a better world that However, their theory had never gone and may not be realized in reality. become the seeds for the emergence of the critical Second Wave Marxism which Opposed to most Neo-Marxist famous as the Frankfurt School. philosophers, Ernst Bloch strongly emphasizes the nature : dealectic Historical Clausal of Frankfrut is just some part of them, even in principle School of utopian world. Bloch was strongly influenced by the mystical tradition and The term of School (referred to eschatological thinking that philosophy was ‘stream’) has various interpretation. The entering the otu of control mystical nature. word school (mazhab) originated in fiqh It may be noted that Bloch was atheis, had term to refer to a branch of science that a positive attitude toward religion because studies Islamic religious laws. Another he considered it as an expression of utopian interpretation of the school is mentioned thinking. in The Center Encyclopaedia of Islam, Another Revisionist figure was Karl the term is defined as a system of thought Korsch (1889-1963) of the German (Suseno, 1992: 173). In Popular Dictionary

98 HISTORIA: International Journal of History Education, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (June 2012) of Islam, Jan. Richard Newton interpretes oppression (the ruler), as repressive as the it as a group of thinkers or writers who previous. Instead of giving the ‘meaning’ engaged in law (Effendi (ed), 1999: 4). of human liberation and alienation, the According to this point of view, no wonder Marx institutionalization of Marxism and if there was an institution of intellectual set Marxism - had actually become called Frankfurt School (Die Frankfurter dogma that shackles the freedom of humans. Schule) established in Germany in According to Michael Hurrungton, Marx 1923, which became the embryo for the himself had always wanted the freedom intellectual community that later known as of thought, therefore Marx condemned the Frankfurt School. dogmatism in his works (Abdullah, 1974: Basically, the term of Frankfurt School 144). Marx saw that his theories was is to indicate a movement of thought misinterpretated, that confessed, “As far as done at multidisciplinary by a group of I know, I am not a Marxist” (Hatta, 1975: intellectuals who focused their activities in 17) the city of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, This misunderstanding has led Marx incorporated within the Institute for Social thoughts to be regarded as a ‘ghost’ Research (Institut for Sarjal Forschung) terrifying everyone, especially for the pioneered by Feliy Weil, the son of a rich people who had experienced the ‘wound’ wheat merchant, Hermann Weil, and the of history and political trauma caused by bachelor of political science (Shindunata, . In fact, as a thinker, some of 1983: 20). Most of this institution population Marx’s ideas was at first appeared as the sympathized Marx (ism), and most of counter dialogue of the thoughts of that them were members of the Communist era (Ramly, 2000: 6-7). Inspired by the Party of Germany, therefore this research spirit to ‘straighten’, ‘refresh’, and renew institution was called Café Marx (Adian, the misinterpreted of Marx thoughts, then 2001: 56), means a community that seeks the Frankfurt School was established. to ‘refresh’ and renew the thought of Karl The initial concept to renew Marx ideas Marx (1818 - 1883) which had been reduced had become an inspiration to the whole and manipulated by some loyal followers intellectual struggle in the community. and friends. Almost all the concepts were built based The misinterpretation of Marx’s on some substantial aspects of Marx’s thought, happened when the thought theory. The basic spirit gave directions and was institutionalized as an ideology of characteristics of the community as the the communist movement, the Marxism neo-Marxist of the contemporary which by Fricdricht Engels (1830 - 1895) and was influential and respected. Vladimir Ilyic Ulyanof known as Lenin since Some influenced thinkers the October Revolution of 1917 (Bolshevik (philosophers) in contemporary era, Revolution) considered Marxism - Leninism particularly in the social sciences, must as an ‘official’ communism ideology in have been born from the ‘womb’ of this Russia. As a result, the revolutionary aspect school. Some of them are Pricdrick Pollock of Marx’s thought which tried to ‘liberate’ (economist), (literature people from the supressed capitalism critic), Max Hokheimer (sociologist), had actually developed as ‘means’ of new Theodor W. Adorno (musician, scholar,

99 damanhuri fatah, The History of the Frankfrut School From Critism to Emancipation Movement psychologist and philosopher), Herbert to give the theoretical light on the social Marcuse (’s student life pratice. By not worship it as the who tried to combine phenomenology party’s program, Horkheimer, through and Marxism and known as the ‘prophets’ his Criticism Theory, tried to restore and ‘inspiration’ of movement in Marxism as , combined the United States), (expert with the criticism of Kant, Hegel and of Freud psychoanalys), and so on. They Freud method. Theodor were known as the first generation of W. Adorno (1903 - 1969) and Herbert the Frankfurt School. The last is Jurgen Marcuse (1898 - 1979) involvement has Habermas, the pioneer of critical ‘sharpened’ and ‘clarified’ the stream of who was one the of the main successor of Frankfurt School critical conception of the second generation of the Frankfurt philosophy, by asking sharp criticism of school. the advanced industrial societies in the late However, it should be realized that 1960s (Hardiman, 1993: xvi). the critical philosophy motivated by Hegel The Early Struggle of Frankfrut and Marx was not based on this school. School If we the development of the West social sciences, the Marxism concept in This school was needed for a long time to its orthodox form had been critized since be the influencing stream in the contempory more than half a century ago,. Horkheimer human “struggling” thoughts. In the early (1895-19730) was not the first person days, the ‘echo’ of Frankfurt school critical who was not satisfied with the Orthodox philosophy was not popular, especially Marxism, before him there were some among academics or philosophical fans. revisionists such as Gramsci who rejected The critical theory become the matter of the principle of of Marx, in discussion among the philosophy and his Prison Notebooks - George Lucacs sociology people in 1961, after Deulsche in his book entitled History and Class Gesellschaft for Sosiologie had a meeting Corlsciousrless (1931), or Karl Korsch’s on ‘the of social sciences’, in which Marxism and Philosophy (1923); aal of mentioned a sharp debate bertween Karl them are the neo-Marxist who are also R. Popper and Theodore W. Adorno, and it very critical (Hardiman, 1993: xv-xvii) and was continued by on Popper’s (Sindhunata, 1983: 21-22). Eventhough for side and Jurgen Habermas on Adorno’s the other neo-Marxist, his third thought is side. In the debate, Adorno and Habermas considered inadequate for a labeled ‘Critical ’ of Popper that could answer the challenges of the and Albert as positivism, while Popper era. The Russian revolution spirit and his and Albert considered ‘Critical Theory’ of engagement to the party - the party in Adorno and his colleagues as totalitarian many ways regarded as the cause of the and full of myths (Suseno, in his preface ‘barren’ of the critical aspects of the basic in the book Sindhunata, 1983 : xiv). Since spirit developed . then the discourse of ‘positivism debate in Having ‘handled’ by Horkhcirnerlah, German sociology’ had become the major Marxism has a serious philosophical themes of philosophy in Germany, and academic approach with the expectation as the result of the Frankfurt School of

100 HISTORIA: International Journal of History Education, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (June 2012)

Critical Theory become the main discourse no longer had ‘fangs’. That is why the in contemporary philosophical history in ‘honeymoon’ between the Frankfurt school Germany. and student activists only lasted until Various social and political upheaval, 1967. occurred in the world in general and in Hokheimer and Adorno reject any Germany in particular, have influenced revolutionary activism. Any attempt to the development of frankfurt school. The use violence only result in a more repressive situation in 1933 during the frightening slavery. For example, the effort racist goverment of Hitler’s Nazi who to eliminate a repressive regime of Russian commit ‘genocide’ to the Jews over the Tsar produced a more brutal regime, the chaos caused by the World War II had sent regime dominated by the Communist the figures of this school to ‘migrate’ to the Party which culminated in Stalinism. For United States in 1934, because most of them them revolution will only restored a more were Jews. Their presence in the United evil repression. States had him to make ‘dialetics’ with However, in the situation like this the the characteristics of theories developed school of Frankfurt faced with a rational there. Intellectual discourse developed in human effort dilemma (Sindhunata, 1983: the United States was quite influential to 20). The Critical Theory has become an the model of thoughts of Frankfurt school, anti-praxis, which is ‘out’ of the initial when this school returned to Germany in enthusiasm which was to direct the 1949. Jurgen Habermas was the figure of theory to praxis toward emancipatory. the school for the second generation. It was Therefore to ‘get out’ from stuck born from a sweet combination between in this ‘epistemology’, the open only way German and the United States intellectual was resognation, the withdrawal of the tradition (Ardyan, 2001: 53). consciousness that refuses to be occupied One interesting thing from this school, by the system; the thought, philosophy, after this school returned to Germany was politics, or ideology. that it still had its critical tradition and Regardless of the dilematic ‘debate’ of found its ‘moment’ to be the inspiration the rational human effort, it can actually for various social movements, paticularly be understood that grouping of thoughts the ones organized by students. Frankfurt that developed in Frankfurt school deeply school had been known as the inspiration of affected by the ‘key’ leaders. Especially if various student movements during 1960s associated with a long history spectrum which known as “The New Left Morement”, of the Frankfurt school, it can be found a the sympathetic to any ‘left’ movement and variety of ‘large’ themes which tend to be against the steadyness. Unfortunately the ‘different’ to each other, but in the same movement patterns used by the student spirit (critical philosophy). This tracing at that time was very revolusionary and is essential to observe (the chronological) dominated by violence. This pattern was Frankfurt school. (very) opposed by Hokheimer and Adorno, In principal, the development of the which caused students left them behind, critical theory of Frankfurt school can be because the Frankfurt school of thought divided into four periods:

101 damanhuri fatah, The History of the Frankfrut School From Critism to Emancipation Movement

1. 1923 - 1933, an initial formation of restricted its members to involve in the Frankfurt School, the studies were political party, and therefore to abstain empirical. At the beginning of the from ‘day to day politics (Sindhunata, formation, the Frankfurt School was 1983: 22). led by a professor of economics and After Grunberg, in early January history at the University of Frankfurt, 1931, the director for the Institute was Professor Carl Grumberg, a Marxist Horkheimer who made the ‘golden age’ from Austria who were sympathetic of the Institute and it was known as the to the ‘idea’ of Felix J. Weil and his Frankfurt School. In his opening speech, friends. entitled “The Present State of Philosophy 2. 1933 - 1950, a period of exile to the and the Sodul Task of on Insititute for United States, under the leadership of Social Research; Horkheimer formulated Max Hokhaimer, where the orientation his concept of as of Frankfurt School was the neo- ‘philosophical interpretation of human Hegelian critical theory. destiny as far as human are not 3. 1950 - 1970, Frankfurt philosophers seen as individuals, but as members of returned and had effect to the discourse society’. The Object of social philosophy is’ of thought in Germany. In this period (as all institutions are material and spiritual described above) the Frankfurt school humanity as a whole (Sindhunata, 1983: effect was led by Herbert Marcuse and 22-23). emerged the New Left movement run This basic principle made Horkheimer by the radical German students. criticize the conception of philosophy in 4. 1970 - The influence of Frankfurt the ‘mean’ of mere ideas, which cause began to decline, especially after the individuals in the world do not able ‘split’ with the students who wanted a to capture the in depth ‘philosophical radical and total change. The deadlock significance’ of these ideas. Freedom was then broken by Jurgen Hebermas, considered owned by the human beings, and known as the second generation of in fact, ‘trapped’ them in a variety of Frankfurt school (Ardyan, 2001: 58- oppression and alienation, mainly carried 59). out by the ruling class. That is why the great ‘project’ of Horkheimer was human In the early development, led by Carl liberation of the various ‘shackles’ caused Grunbarg, the Frankfurt school had really by, particularly, ideology disrupting social tried to outline that the Social Research reality. Therefore the theme of the Institute was Marxist, ‘the method taught of critical ideological seemed to be a new as a theory to solve problems are marxist ‘trend’ to this genre during Horkheimer era. method’ (Phil Slater, 1977: 2). However, Demolition of this ‘manipulative’ ideology as always stressed by Grunberg Weil: “the was the new face of Frankfurt school. relationship with Marxism needs to be understood not in terms of political parties, The effort to dismantle the ideology but only in the scientific sense” (Phil Slater, by the Critical Theory Horkheimer 1977: 3). At that time the scientific of Marxist showed how he developed the theory of was really guarded, therefore Grunberg emancipatory praxis in favor of the public.

102 HISTORIA: International Journal of History Education, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (June 2012)

In Horkheimer’s hand, the Critical Theory All the critical work essentially boiled used an emancipatory ‘tool’ to liberate down to the philosophy of critical theory the society from the prisons of authority through Public Criticism, that behind (interests) hiden behind the ‘cloak’ of establisbment, there was an oppresive ideology. The society emancipation ideology, known or not. Thus the society thus became the main personality of must be freed from such oppression, so that Horkheimer which later supported by they do not ‘imprisoned’ on a dogmatism Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, and also in their thought and ideologicaly. Jurgen Habermas. According to this spirit the Frankfurt The first criticism, introduced by school’s emancipation movement Horkheimer, is about positivism in the found its ‘estuary’ in the Enlightenment social sciences, which supports the status (Aufklarung) era which was originally quo, the people behind the guise of supported by the Frankfurt school with all . The Positivism of of its emancipation project derived from was merely ideology of status quo, because the natural and social obstructions. But it was considered that the social sciences, on the further developments, they turned was value-free, free of social practice and to suspect enlightment as the culprit of the , and can be used for prediction, emergence of positivistic thinking which objective, and so on. Such presumption Horkheimer called as ‘instrumental ratio’, became the common , that the only Adorno called it as identity thoughts, and form of true knowledge was the scientific Marcuse called it as the ‘technological knowledge, and knowledge of this kind was rationality’ (Hardiman, 1993: xvii). simply obtained from the natural sciences For Adorno and Horkheimer, the (Hardiman, 1993: xvi - xvii). enlightenment effort through a project of Initiated by the conception of eliminating the myths from ancient Greece Horkheimer and his colleagues who logos with the critical ratio, particularly considered that modern science, instead through science and technology, was of creating an emancipative situation apparently developed into a new myth, for the community, it helped the process in a more subtle, more noble and more of mechanization of society in the form accepted by the modern people (Hardiman, of economic system and bureaucratic 1993: xvii, and Sindhunata, 1983: xix - administration. , ‘restrained’ xx). The dominance of critical ratio in human freedom to think to ‘victimizing’ Aufklarung was in fact developed into Gramsci because his liberalization a new ideology that ‘silence’ the critical thoughts and repressive Stalinism that power of modern society. When people are had ‘suppressed’ the community was ‘tied up’ by a mainsream, that is when they critical phenomenon to the Frankfurt are unconsiously trapped by the emerge of school and referred as the oppressive a new myth. Herbert Marcuse has the same crystallization ideology, but in the oppinion (Marcuse, Herbert, 1964: 23). He future the advance capitalist society and criticized the construction of developed Western commonwelth countries were industrial society which he described as the phenomenon criticized by Habermas. single-dimensional society. Without the

103 damanhuri fatah, The History of the Frankfrut School From Critism to Emancipation Movement second dimension or resistance againts was actually a hidden place of ideological the system, the industry’s only adapt the interests of certain parties. These interests dominance technocratism. would be ‘dismantled’ by Marx, which Further, the criticsm adopted by the then continued by the Frankfurt School Frankfrut school met its deadlock. Because community that was popular with this the emancipation ‘project’ was in turn had ‘ideological criticism’. become the new domination, the critique Frankfurt School’s way of thinking is was merely the instrument of domination. called the “Theory of Public Criticism” by In other word, a rational criticism was its figures, it means to liberate people from impossible. In today’s society there is no the manipulation of modern technocrats. room for criticism, because domination The typical of ‘Theory of Public Criticism’ is total. The deadlock continues in a long is that this theory is contrary to the basic period of time, after Jurgen Habernas (the thought of Karl Marx, but at the same time second generation of Frankfurt school) is beyond and put him behind to face the presented a new paradigm in Critical Theory problems of developed industrial societies through its communication paradigm, the in a new and creative way (Suseno, 1992: new ‘phase’ re-emerged from the school 160). (Hardiman, 1993). This critical paradigm is what later became the inspiration for the construction The Epistemology of Frankfurt of models of thought, the Frankfurt School. As explained above, the Frankfurt The critical power is used as the knives and School is a diverse intellectual community. theme analysis of the intellectual struggle The Intellectuals who ‘wrestle’ in it are the to produce sharp criticisms about the representatives of various disciplines that public, not only in terms of ideology, but have the same intellectual spirit, to re-raise also science and culture. Almost the entire the critical tradition that has been fading society is the object of criticism, which is since Marxism became an ideology of the questionable, reviewed, and if necesary workers fights that had been ‘suppressed’ “destroyed” from top to the roots, to reveal cruising force (the power) Marx thoughts the idelogy cover. that always seeks to develop a critical The most incisive critique of the awareness of the society against all Frankfurt School was aimed at the forms of oppression. However, it must enlightenment project (Aufklarung) be admitted that the characteristic of the which totally failed in the anthropological thoughts apparently had left far behind the paradox. The effort of modern people to ‘inspirator’, Marx. liberate themselves from the shackles of The critical tradition which was myth or theological, which is ‘taken for originally developed by Marx sought to granted’ has been rationalized human and dismantle the structure or system hidden nature itself. Rationalization in a critical in the veil of a certain ideologicals thinking sense is a rational act aimed at trying to that collects the societies creativity. It master reality as efficient as possible for means that the the order grew (at the time) the sake of interests (economic, political, etc) (Adyan, 2001: 57).

104 HISTORIA: International Journal of History Education, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (June 2012)

The critical paradigm which the Critical processes. It means the critical Theory attemped to develop was clearly philosophy must always be dialectic different from the traditional philosophical with social reality as a target of thinking (of Hegel, Husserl, to Heidegger), criticism. which was not only contemplative, but also 3. Separating the theory and praxis, does standed as the successor of Marx’s ideals. not release the facts of its value but As the emancipatory theory it tried to merely to obtain the objective results restore the freedom and future of mankind. (Ardyan, 2001: 59-60). Critical theory not only tried to explain, It should be understood that this consider, reflect, categorize, and organize, ‘critical’ paradigm does not merely but it also tried to change. It did not change ‘critisize’ or ‘suspicious’ toward various the philosophy, but the destroying of irregularities in the society, but it is at human by the results of tehir own works first aware to the assumptions and social (and perhaps including the capitalistic functions of theories, including this theory systems), therefore this theory was really itself. This kind of thinking makes critical practical (Suseno, 1992: 161-163). thinking not to trapped in the traditional In the context of Critical Theory, it was theory. The emancipatorical critical theory found that momen should always be closely has tried to be ‘all out’ and to be different related to the critique of the real social from the traditional theory which is relations. The critical thinking reflects the affirmative and status quo (anti change) society as well as theirselves in the context pro. As known the traditional theory has of dialectical structures of oppression and been understood as the formulation of emancipation. The Critical Philosophy as general and final principles in describing an ‘ammunition does not put as a pure and interpreting reality. The traditional theory, as if philosophy can be neutral in theory separates facts from values and analyzing the substance of human and tries to get the objective laws of reality. society without getting involved in it. The traditional theory is informative and Critical thinking considered themselve to affirmative to the happened reality(Adyan, be responsible toward a real social situation 2001: 60). (Suseno, 1992: 175-176). In such circumstances the traditional Implicitly as the emancipatory ‘tool’, theory with objectivity has lost its critical Critical Theory must meet the following power. It’s as if something that has been three requirements,: said as objective, should be accepted. In 1. to be critical and suspicious of its fact, objectivity is the result of human time, as done by their ‘inspirator’, Karl action in history, the result of a history Marx against the capitalist system. The of oppression and exploitation. It would logical consequence of this attitude of not be too much (Suseno, 1992: 179- style of thinking resulted in the refusal 180) to say that in the next development, to be a doctrine. They are suspicious to the traditional theory had served to the all of doctrines. status quo of interest and supported the 2. think historically is based on the sustainability of the exist power structures. community, of their ‘historical’ Under the veil of objectivity and freedom

105 damanhuri fatah, The History of the Frankfrut School From Critism to Emancipation Movement the ‘traditional theory’ had become the Every theory, system, and ideology must be supporter to the power system based on accepted in a critical awareness. oppression. Therefore, this theory is also The construction Frankfurt school’s trapped to be an ideology, or at least to be critical tradition is basically a result the ‘means’ of the interests of an ideology. of a dialectic toward various thoughts The critical theory showed up to critisize previously developed. Although this school the impression of autonomy and objectivity has Marxism as its starting point, but the in the claim of theoretical approaches. critical tradition built and developed by the This theory had tried to be critical toward idealism of Kant, Hegel’s dialectic doctrine, the positive status of the other theories. Karl Marx’s critique of , It became a critical movement in the and the psychoanalysis of as form of theory and the thinking process. its foundation of the critical epistemology. The critical theory exposed the theory of In an interesting blend between the conditionals and the hidden implications in idealism of Kant, Hegel’s and Marx’s it. The critique did not come from outside as well as Freud’s, with various of the theory, but let the existing theories to modifications that had made them relevant ‘talk’ about their philosophical desire or its with the challenges of the era. All the three claims (its ideals), so the lies and falses will models of thoughts had viewed the word reveal by themselves. Without ‘showing’ ‘criticism’ differently. Hegel views it as the the weaknesses of a theory, especially the reflection or self-reflection of the obstacles, theory of positive (ism), exposing the theory pressures, and that obstruct or ideology on its claims will uncover its the process of self-formation of the ratio ideological veil. in history. Karl Marx, as a Left Hegelian, Thus, the instability that previously views criticism as emancipatory efforts of protected by the positive theory is stripped. oppression and aliensment generated by The mistaken reality is no longer seen as power relations in the society. While Sigmud an objective reality, as it has become an Freud views criticism as the individual open field for emancipative human action. liberation from irrationality to rationality, Borrowing the terminology (Suseno, 1992, from unconsciousness into consciousness 180-181), the ideological had torn apart (Ardyan, 2001 and Sindhunata, 1983: 29- the veil of positive theories that given false 61). legitimacy to the reality, the whole reality The critical paradigm developed as a itself can be challenged. However one thing result of the elaboration and modification that should be the principal concern is that placed by the Frankfurt school as ‘the critical theory does not deal with objective blade of analysis’ to dismantle the various laws and general principles of reality, but steadiness in social reality, which is rather the effort to wake human up of their shaped by ideology, theory, or system. irrationality attached to the enlightenment The demolition “Project” continues over project, as well as building the critical time, and many have been executed. awareness of the public in order not to get However, the has ‘trapped’ caught dogmatically in using a theory or critical theory in a ‘deadlock’ and failure, system, and ideology and without a reserve. particularly when explaining the modern

106 HISTORIA: International Journal of History Education, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (June 2012) liberation society (criticism) of the ideology to continue the Critical Theory project and capitalism system. The development through a new paradigm; from the critical of critical was ‘stuttering’ with critics paradigm to communication (Hardiman, when facing vis-à-vis with the grip of the 1993, Ardyan, 2001: 76-80). capitalist system in a modern society. Conclusion Criticisms offered by critical theory had its deadlock. The dominance occured More transparently, the basic is in fact has been so total that the critiques framework of critical theory of the against capitalism can be coopted, and Frankfurt school is basically attempted ‘broken’ by capitalism itself. The Hippies, to review its critical paradigm toward for example, who rebelled against the four (4) matters: the critique of ideology, behavior of the system through the the critique of positivism, the critique ‘eccentric’ style with battered scooters, torn of the (construction of) modern society. clothes, jeans, beaded necklace was in fact Although, in its development it faced being co-opted by the modern capitalism ‘failure’, but there was an attractive spirit, by using the rebellion symbols as a new its intetion to implement the emantipation . The jeans was made to be project to ‘free’ the society from the fashioned by presenting advertisement prisons of ideology, theory, and system using a particular public figure and a slogan interests which bind and suppress civil (for example): “the axe jeans, the rebel’s liberties. This theory wished to develop and jeans “. The is no longer a build a critical public awareness of social revolutionary because they are not a critical reality surrounding it, with a ‘suspicion’; consumers (Ardyan, 2001, 75-76). behind every system, theory and ideology That is why, the criticisms by the (steadyness) that might hide the oppression Frankfurt school failed to make the critical projects. theory as a catalyst and emansipator for This basic spirit should be an inspiration modern society to be free from the chains for people in ‘reading’ the Society Criticism (one of them is) capitalism. On the other Theory of Frankfurt school. Despite all the hand, critical theory also considered as the shortcomings and weaknesses, this scgool cause of the emancipation ‘campaigned’ has become an inspiration for the liberation that has turned into the new domination. efforts towards liberation and future of Criticism is no less than a new instrument human(ity) that is free from all shackles of of domination. As a result, in today’s society exploitation and oppression. there is no space for rational criticism, because domination (actually) is total; including the dominance of capitalism. The REFERENCES failure had made a sucessor and reformer of the Franfurt second generation attempted Abdullah, T. dkk. (1974). Manusia dalam to revise it, he was Jurgen Habermas. He Kemelut Sejarah. Jakarta: LP3ES. appeared as the reformer of Critical Theory Adyan, D.G. (2001). Arus Pemikiran who not only revealed the epistemological Kontemporer. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra. weaknesess of its predecessors, but also Bertens, K. (1981). Filsafat Barat give a very fertile fundamental insight dalam Abad XX. Jakarta: Gramedia.

107 damanhuri fatah, The History of the Frankfrut School From Critism to Emancipation Movement

Effendi, E.A. (1999). Dekonstruksi Islam Sindhunata. (1982). Dilema Manusia Mazhab Ciputat. Bandung: Mizan. Rasional, Kritik Masyarakat Modern Hardiman, B.F. (1993). Menuju oleh Marx Horkheimer dalam Rangka Masyarakat Komunikatif, Ilmu, Sekolah Frankfurt. Jakarta: Gramedia. Masyarakat & Politik Menurut Jurgen Slater, P. (1977). Origin and Significance Habermas. Yogyakarta: Kanisius of the Frankfurt School, A. Marxis Hadiwiyono, H. (1980). Sari Sejarah Perspective. London: Routledge & Filsafat, Jilid I. Yogyakarta: Kanisius. Kegan Paul, Hardiman, B.F. (2003). Melampaui Sugiharto, B. I. (1996). Posmodernisme: Positivisme dan Modernitas (Diskursus Tantangan Bagi Filsafat. Yogyakarta: Filosofis tentang Merode Ilmiah dan Kanisius. Problem Modernitas). Yogyakarta: Suseno, F.M. (1999). Pemikiran Karl Marx, Kanisius. Dari Sosialisme Utopis ke Perselisihan Lechte, J. (2001). 50 Filsuf Kontemporer, Revisionisme. Jakarta: Gramedia. dari Strukturalisme sampai Suseno, F.M. (1992). Filsafat Sebagai Ilmu Postmodernisme. Terjemahan oleh Kritis. Yogyakarta: Kanisius. A. Gunawan Admiranto. Yogyakarta: Sutrisno,U & Hardiman, B. F. (1992). Kanisius. Para Filsuf Penentu Gerak Zaman. Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Yogyakarta: Kanisius. Man, Studies in the Sociology of Titus, H.H. dkk. (1984). Persoalan- Advanced Industrial Society. London: Persoalan Filsafat. Jakarta: Bulan Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bintang, Ramly, A. M. (2000). Peta Pemikiran Karl Marx, Materialisme Dialektis dan Materialisme Historis. Yogyakarta: LKIS.

108