FRANKFURT SCHOOL AND THE CRITICAL THEORY
FRANKFURT SCHOOL AND THE CRITICAL THEORY
OUTLINE
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
CONTEXT
OF RISING
2.1 Glance
of Marxism
2.2 Literature
Against Marxism
3.0
FAILURES
OF PREVENTION
3.1 Institute
for Social Research
3.2 German
Prewar Context
3.3 The
Employment of The Wonder Minds
4.0
IMPACTS
OF CRITICAL THEORY
4.1 The
Initiation of The Critical Theory
4.2 Critique
of The Marxian Ideology
4.3 Critique
of Western Civilization
5.0
PROVIDENTIAL
EXILE IN AMERICA
5.1 Escaping
Nazism
5.2 Fertility
of The Project
5.3 Birth
of The Analytic Philosophy
6.0 CONCLUSION
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The
principle of existence in relation with the world of socio-economic enterprise,
gives a clear reflection of the dawn and flight of the Frankfurt School. This
inherent and essential feature is a construct of what comprise of its history,
theories, and political interest. Historically, we see the trends and accounts
of occurrences that interplay in the universe; which draws more closely to the
circles of revolution. A revolution of this kind is a vivid depiction of the
relationship that abounds in variant perspectives.[1]
Among them are the terrains of liberal manifestations in the Western
philosophical landscape, modern civilization in the wake of the socialist and
capitalist structure of the society; and a class of industrial and rational
innovations, among others.
All
these phases of developments indicated above are major pointers to the
perimeters of existential realities; in the light of “rational criticism and
analytic theory,” which are represented by the systematic tool of the School of
Frankfurt –“The Critical Theory.”[2] It
becomes a mandate to state the necessity of this “systematic tool,” whose
influential presence led to the influx of radical liberation and downturn, in
the center of the socialist and capitalist human society.[3]
By
way of methodology and as a plan to develop the subject matter of this paper,
an examination of the following contents will be underscored in this order: the
context of rising, the failures of prevention, the impacts of critical theory,
providential exile in America; and then the sense of an ending- the conclusion.
It is on the note of this responsibility, that we give an exposition of the
topic: “The Frankfurt School and the Critical Theory.”
2.0 CONTEXT OF RISING
2.1 Glance of Marxism
Marxism
is an economic and social system based upon the political and economic theories
of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism is summed up as “a theory in which class struggle is a
central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.”[4]
Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism which is defined as “an economic system based on the private
ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized
by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.” Marxism is the
system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the
means of production, distribution, and exchange.[5]
Marx’s concept of social science was
explicitly political, as was his activity as a social scientist, in contrast to
the views that social science can be “above politics” or “balanced”, that
social science can be apolitical or at least neutral between competing
political positions. His concept of science was formed in a peculiarly Germanic
tradition. The other two elements- socialism and political economy arrived in
1841, when Marx was in contact with Moses Hess.[6]
Marx’s social science was in place as a projected synthesis as early as 1842,
though this perspective is available to us only because his early articles,
manuscripts and correspondence have now become available.
In his own time, Marx’s thoughts
reached the public only through the unexpected writings and journalism.[7]
What Marx had in mind was neither Hegelian philosophical system not in the
style of Hess. Rather he proposed a unified science that was social not just in
its subject matter but in its very presuppositions. For Marx, natural science
was not knowledge of inanimate objects such as discovered by individuals doing pure research, but rather an activity within society itself, producing
knowledge that would profoundly influence all humanity through technological applications in industry.[8]
Social science
would be historical and political in its very foundations, seeing every human phenomenon as developing, rather
than static; and it would be knowledge for a purpose, namely to promote the emancipation of humankind from class conflict and the
transformation of society into a realm of freedom.[9]
According to Marx, there is a “legal and political
superstructure" and corresponding forms of social consciousness. These
have developed through various stages into the modern class struggle and the democratic
politics of constitutional
revolution. Marx aimed to make the two coincident. From this it followed that a
major study of modern industrial production would be central to any convincing social science,
and that it would be a critical analysis written to promote the political interests of the working class
in a democratizing
social revolution.[10]
Marx read a political
economists whose view is that industrial capitalism was socially progressive, at least in the longer term, and that in order
to get to the longer
term, it would be necessary, albeit regrettable, to tolerate the poverty and misery from which new wealth
and new commodities were generated. By contrast, Marx suspected that capitalism would be subject to economic crises and normative absurdity
as the gap between rich and poor widened, and as the gulf between potential productivity and actual production grew more visible.[11]
2.2 Literature Against Marxism
Some contemporary
supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable,
but that the corpus is incomplete or somewhat outdated in regards to certain
aspects of economic, political or social theory. They may therefore combine
some Marxist concepts with the ideas of other theorists such as Max Weber: for example, the Frankfurt school. V. K. Dmitriev and Ladislaus Von Bortkiewicz’s subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value
theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege
that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical
premises.[12]
Once those errors are corrected, Marx's conclusion that aggregate price and
profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value no
longer holds true. This result calls into question his theory that the
exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.[13]The
inconsistency allegations have been a prominent feature of Marxian economics
and the debate surrounding it since the 1970s. Andrew Kliman argues that, since internally inconsistent theories cannot
possibly be right, this undermines Marx's critique of political economy and
current-day research based upon it, as well as the correction of Marx's alleged
inconsistencies.
Proponents of the “Temporal Single System Interpretation” of Marx's
value theory, like Kliman, claim that the supposed inconsistencies are actually
the result of misinterpretation; they argue that when Marx's theory is
understood as "temporal" and "single-system," the alleged
internal inconsistencies disappear. In a recent survey of the debate, Kliman
concludes that "the proofs
of inconsistency are no longer defended; the entire case against Marx has been
reduced to the interpretive
issue.”[14]
3.0 FAILURES OF
PREVENTION
At
the inception of the Frankfurt School several factors endeavored to militate its
development and the success of their agenda. However, instead of these factors
succeeding in the achievement of their objective, they served as a springboard
to the development of the school and its agenda. At this juncture, we focus our
attention to these factors and also examine the various ways in which they
promoted the success of the Frankfurt school.
3.1 Institute for Social
Research
The earliest trace of what is presently known
as the Frankfurt School is embedded in the Institute for Social Research. The
institute was founded through the donation of a young Marxist Felix Weil
(1898-1975) and after the success of his symposium in 1922. The institute was
an adjunct of the University of Frankfurt and the first Marxist-oriented
research center.[15] The
purpose behind the formation of the institute for social research is to provide
for studies on the labor movement and the origins of anti-Semitism which was at
that time ignored in German intellectual and academic life.[16]
After the formation of the institute for
social research, it was formally recognized by the ministry of education and a
Marxist legal and political professor: Carl Grunberg (1923-9); was appointed
the director. His contribution to the Institute was the
creation of an historical archive mainly oriented to the study of the labour
movement. Max Horkheimer succeeded Grunberg in 1930 and interpreted the
institute’s mission to be more directed towards an interdisciplinary
integration of the social sciences.
Under
the leadership of Horkheimer, the institute for social research was capable to
address a wide variety of economic, social, political, and aesthetic topics
ranging from empirical analysis to philosophical theorization. Also, different
interpretation of Marxism and its historical applications was rendered by the
institute which were helpful in explaining certain hard economic themes of Karl
Marx. Thus in Horkheimer’s leadership, the institute for social research objective
took a radical turn which was characteristic to its future successes.
3.2 German Pre-war
Context
The political
tumult of Germany’s troubled interwar period greatly affected the school’s
development. The failure of the working class revolution in Western Europe and
the rise of Nazism in such an economically and technologically advanced nation
as Germany had a great influence on thoughts of the Frankfurt school. As a
result of this influence, a lot of them were faced with the task of choosing
parts of Marx’s thought that might serve to clarify the contemporary social
conditions that Marx himself had never seen. More so, Another key influence
also came from the publication in the 1930s of Marx's Economic-Philosophical
Manuscripts and The German Ideology, which showed the
continuity with Hegelianism
that underlay Marx's thought.
As the growing
influence of National Socialism became ever more threatening, its founders
decided to prepare to move the Institute out of the country.[17]
Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933, the
Institute left Germany for Geneva,
before moving to New
York City in 1935, where it became affiliated with Columbia University. Its journal was renamed to Studies in Philosophy and Social Science.
It was at this moment that much of its important work began to emerge, having
gained a favorable reception within American and English academia.
3.3 Employment of the Wonder Minds
Following Max
Horkheimer’s assumption of leadership of the Frankfurt school (1930), the exile
in America (1933) and their return to Germany (1950) makes the Frankfurt school
theorists to vary. They are mostly grouped to pre-war or early theorists and
post-war or later theorists. The early theorists include the persons of Max
Horkheimer, Theordor Adorno, Herbert Mercuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm,
Leo Lowenthal[18]
among others. While the later theorists are Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Axel
Honneth, and Alfred Schmidt.
Max Horkheimer (front left), Theodor Adorno (front right), and Jürgen Habermas in the background, right, in 1965
at Heidelberg.
4.0 IMPACTS OF CRITICAL
THEORY
4.1 The Initiation of
Critical Theory
Max
Horkheimer in his Traditional and Critical theory begins by asking “what is
theory?”[19]He
went further to answer that in most researchers mind, theory is the sum total
of propositions about a subject which are linked together in the sense that few
are basic while others are derived from the basic, thus it is stored up
knowledge which are descriptive.[20]
More so if experience and theory contradicts each other, one of the two must be
re-examined and one must be ready to change it if the weaknesses begin to show.
This
conception of theory brings us to the two kinds of theory acknowledged by Horkheimer,
which are Traditional Theory and Critical Theory. Traditional theory is based
on scientific activity; it refers to the positivistic or purely observational
mode which derives generalizations about different aspects of the world. Horkheimer
argued that Traditional theory is insufficient because it is subject to a prejudice
that separates theoretical activity from actual life which means that what it
seeks to find is a logic that always remains true, independent of and without
consideration to ongoing human activities. According to Horkheimer, the
appropriate response to this dilemma is the development of a critical theory.[21]
Critical theory can be
understood as a self-conscious social critique that is aimed at change and
emancipation through enlightenment and that does not cling dogmatically to its
own doctrinal assumptions.[22]
The aim of the Frankfurt school in adopting the critical theory is to analyze
the significance of the ruling understandings generated in the bourgeois
society thus to interpret the areas of the society which Marx had not dealt
with especially in the superstructure of society.[23]
Furthermore, Horkheimer posited that critical theory is directed towards the
totality of society in its historical specificity; i.e. how it is shaped at a
particular point in time. Also, it is aimed at improving understanding of
society by assimilating all the major social sciences such as psychology,
economics, anthropology, political science, history etc. Horkheimer further
posits that for a theory to be critical it must be explanatory, it must combine
practical and normative thinking to explain what is wrong with current social
reality, identify factors to change it and provide clear norms for criticism
and practical goals for the future.[24]Therefore,
whereas traditional theory can only mirror and explain reality as it presently
is, critical theory's purpose is to change
it; in Horkheimer's words the goal of critical theory is “the emancipation of
human beings from the circumstances that enslave them”[25].
4.2 Critique of Marxian
Ideology
The
Frankfurt School having defined the tool (critical theory) with which they
worked, went further to direct the tool towards Marxian Ideology. Nevertheless,
it would be worthy to note that by using the term ‘Critique’, the Frankfurt School
are explicitly linking up the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant where the
term Critique does not necessary stand as a derogative approach but as a
reflection on the limits of claims made for certain kinds of knowledge. In that
light, the critical theorists intended to rehabilitate Marx’s ideas through a
philosophical critical approach.
The
Frankfurt school theorists like Horkheimer based his work on Marxism on the
epistemological base of Marx’s work which presented itself as a critique of
Marx’s Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. They emphasized that Marx
attempted to create a new kind of critical analysis oriented toward the unity
of theory and revolutionary practice
rather than a new kind of positive science. Therefore, Critique in this Marxian
sense means taking the ideology of a society and critiquing it by comparing it
with a posited social reality of that very society. The Frankfurt school
theorists rooted their claim using the dialectical method already illustrated
by Hegel and Marx.
Hegel
conceived dialectics as the tendency of an idea to pass over time into its own
negation as the result of conflict between its inherent contradictory aspects.[26]Hegel
further posits that history evolves in a dialectical manner i.e. the present
exemplifies the synthesis of past contradictions. It is an intelligible process
which Hegel referred to as world spirit, which is moving towards a
specific condition—the rational realization
of human freedom.[27]
However, Marx criticized Hegel and posited that it is not consciousness of men
that determine their being but on their social standing that determine that
consciousness.[28]
Therefore, Marx theory constitute of a scenario where capitalism is replaced by
communism.
However,
the critical theorists adopted a self-correcting method i.e. a dialectical
method that would enable them to correct previous false dialectical
interpretations. Hence, the critical theorists rejected the historicism,
material tensions and class struggle of Marx. The critical theorist in
rejecting these views emasculates the revolutionary potential within western
societies which is an indication that Marx’s dialectical interpretation and
prediction were either incomplete or incorrect.
4.3 Critique of Western
Civilization
Two
works of the philosophers of the school of Frankfurt are notable for the
critique of Western Civilization; Dialectic
of Enlightenment and Minima Moralia
by Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno, both written while they were in exile,
escaping Nazism. They criticised Western Civilization by exposing the failures
of the “age of enlightenment” (if it could truly be called so). The opening
words of the first chapter of the
Dialectic of Enlightenment states: “Enlightenment, understood in the
wildest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human
beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened
earth is radiant with triumphant calamity.”[29]
The above statement is a show that the hope of the age of enlightenment has
excessively crumbled. The rationality of Western Civilization seems to be an
amalgam of domination and technological rationality, bringing all of external
and internal nature under the power of the human subject. But in the process,
man loses himself entirely, so much so that he is unable to retrace his steps.
Evidently, the Dialectics states that “on the way towards modern science human
beings have discarded meaning.”[30]
And again, that “the enlightenment has eradicated the last remnant of its own
self-awareness.
Human
beings through the acclaimed civilization of the West has only sort to learn
how to control and dominate both nature and human beings, and the result of
this has evidently been catastrophic, it did not just lead to the European
fascism, it also led to a succession of wars. It says again at the conclusion
of the first chapter that “enlightenment is turning itself into an outright
deception of the masses.
In
the Minima Moralia, Theodor Adorno
explains that Western Civilization has been destructive to humanity, even
though it has come as hope-offering, hence the title of the book, Reflections from Damaged life. Adorno
wrote this book during the World War II, and in his introduction he wrote, “the
sorrowful science” which is a way of relating it to Fredrick Nietzsche’s Gay Science. The book is concerned about
teaching good life, a central theme of both the Greek and Hebrew sources of
Western philosophy. Adorno holds that a good honest life is no longer possible,
because we live in an inhuman society. Thus, the book opens with the statement,
“Life does not live.”[31]
In a series of short reflections and aphorisms, Adorno considers the subversive
nature of toys, the desolation of the family, the ungenuinness of being
genuine, the decay of conversation, the rise of occultism and the history of
tact. He shows how the smallest changes in the everyday behaviour stand in
relation to the most catastrophic events of the twentieth century.[32]
Against
Western Civilization, Adorno has this to say in the Minima Moralia “there is no true life in a false life.” In one of
his reflections, titled “How nice of you, Doctor,” Adorno exposes the fact that
modernity who served as a doctor, prescribing against the Christian age has
suggested a wrong prescription. Thus, Adorno wrote: “there is nothing innocuous
left, the little pleasures, expressions of life seemed exempt from the
responsibility of thought, not only have an element of defiant silliness, of
callous refusal to see, but directly serve diametrical opposite.”[33]
Adorno grieves the irretrievable loss of a paradise of a privileged childhood,
holding fast to the Judeao-Christian-Enlightenment vision of redemption, which
he calls the only valid viewpoint with which to engage a deeply trouble world.
Affirming that this would necessarily imply a surrender of modernity, he
asserts that in many people, it is already an impertinence to say “I.”
5.0
PROVIDENTIAL EXILE IN AMERICA
5.1
ESCAPING NAZISM
How the fathers of Critical Theory found their way
to America came as a result of Hitler’s intellectual viewpoint which was influenced during
his youth not only by these currents in the German tradition but also by
specific Austrian movements that professed various political sentiments,
notably those of pan-Germanic expansionism and anti-Semitism. This intellectual
preparation would probably not have been sufficient for the growth of National
Socialism in Germany, but for that country’s defeat in World War 1. The defeat
and the resulting disillusionment, pauperization, and frustration particularly
among the lower middle classes, paved the way for the success of the propaganda of Hitler and the Nazis[34].
The
treaty of Versailles (1919), the formal settlement of
World War I drafted without German participation, alienated many Germans with
its imposition of harsh monetary and territorial reparations.[35]
The significant resentment expressed toward the peace treaty gave Hitler a
starting point. Because German representatives (branded the “November
criminals” by National Socialists) agreed to cease hostilities and did not
unconditionally surrender in the armistice of November 11, 1918, there was a
widespread feeling particularly in the military that Germany’s defeat had been
orchestrated by diplomats at the Versailles meetings[36].
From
the beginning, Hitler’s propaganda of revenge for this “traitorous” act,
through which the German people had been “stabbed in the back,” and his call
for rearmament had strong appeal within military circles, which regarded the
peace only as a temporary setback in Germany’s expansionist program. The
ruinous inflation of the German currency in 1923 wiped out the savings of many
middle-class households and led to further public alienation and dissatisfaction.
It was in the light of all these that the propaganda of Hitler paves way for
him to rise into power. The underside of its propaganda machine was its
apparatus of terror, horror, and error, with its ubiquitous secret police and
concentration camps. Between 1938 and 1945 Hitler’s regime attempted to expand
and apply the Nazi system to territories outside the German Reich. This
endeavor was confined, in 1938, to lands inhabited by German-speaking
populations, but in 1939 Germany was to subjugate non-German-speaking
nationalities as well. Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 1, which
initiated World War 11, was the logical outcome of Hitler’s plan.[37]
Furthermore, Hitler’s rise to power,
with His ferocious nationalism, his contempt of the Slavs, and his hatred of
the Jews whom he identified with a kind of cosmic evil. This eventually led to the
transit lift of the fathers of
Critical Theory, as they found their way to America on exile. According
to him, the Jews were to be discriminated against in the society not according
to their religion but according to their race. Another
reason the Institute had to leave Frankfurt in the first place was that, in
addition to being radicals and Marxists, the members of the group were almost
all Jewish.[38] The
school was created by Herman Weil, a German Jew who had made a fortune
importing grain from Argentina, and his son Felix, who like many young men was
radicalized after Germany’s defeat in World War I.
Among the tidal wave of academic
refugees from Hitler’s Germany, the members of the Institute were actually very
lucky to have escaped the horror attack of Hitler. For a brief period the
school was in Geneva, but later relocated to Morningside Heights, where it
formed an uneasy partnership with Columbia University.[39]
Max Horkheimer, with a prescience that was all too rare among German Jews, had
already shifted the Institute’s endowment out of German banks and shipped its
library out of the country.[40]
The scholars reassembled in Geneva, but this could only be a temporary respite,
since most of them could not get permanent Swiss visas. As Wheatland shows in
the first of the book’s four sections, Horkheimer embarked on a
well-thought-out campaign to find a new home for the Institute in the United
States, sending out a pamphlet with testimonials to sociology departments at
American universities.[41]
It would be hard to overstate the
importance of the Frankfurt School in recent American thought. Philosophers,
psychologists, and sociologists like Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert
Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer to name just the best-known members of
the group helped to develop a subtle and powerful way of thinking about the
problems of modern society. Critical Theory, as it is usually capitalized,
adapted the revolutionary impulse of Marxism to 20th century conditions, in
which mass culture and totalitarianism seemed to shut off any real possibility
of social transformation.[42]
5.2 FERTILITY OF THE PROJECT
Having
gone through the above subheadings, it should be noted that “the Frankfurt School
is a complex phenomenon and the style of social thought which has come to be
principally associated with it –Critical Theory- which has been expounded and
interpreted in a variety of ways.”[43] The
achievement of this heading “fertility of the project” was a collaborative and
collective responsibility of the management of this school, which include
Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Pollock and so on. They were able to achieve this
through their collective tireless effort, contributing their ideas and quota.
The fertility of the project which could equally be described as the fertility
of the school of Frankfurt, talks about the impact of the managements toward
making the school what it is.[44]
The
Frankfurt school thinkers were led by their pessimism into a retreat from
Marxian social theory and then towards an essentially philosophical and
Neo-Hegelian critique of ideology”.
Nevertheless, Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse were responsible for the
theory of capitalist society which emphasized its cultural manifestations above
all other aspects. Being trapped in the climate of cultural loss and decline
which must be linked to their experience of the rise of fascism in Germany, the
‘critical theory’ developed by these men during this period was overwhelmingly
concerned with the mounting irrationality of social and cultural values and
their reflection in the ideas of positivism and scientism.
Indeed,
it is of some significance that there has been such widespread interest in the
ideas of the principal Frankfurt school theorists, for their work vividly
struck a chord when philosophical interpretations of Marxist concepts were at
the height of their popularity. This showed the interest of the school over
their work to search for a better world after 1968 in the English speaking
world. That is they made a “promise of an intellectualized and culturally
sophisticated quasi-Marxism had undeniably appealed”[45].
Although
this school became entangled with the idea of philosophy, which was reinforced
by both Marcuse and Adorno, “at the same time the school developed a strong
interest in the psychoanalysis and this remained a prominent element in its
later work”[46].
It is equally good to state that the management while in exile were able to
elaborate as well as systematize their theoretical views which enabled them to
shape and organize a distinctive school of thought. “By the time this school
returned to Frankfurt in 1950, the principal ideas of critical theory had been
clearly set out in a number of major writings and the Frankfurt school began to
exert an important influence upon German social thought.”[47]
It
will not be out of place to reveal Horkheimer’s original formulation of
critical theory, first, that his hesitant and somewhat skeptical evaluation of
the role of the working class, already gave an intimation of his later profound
pessimism about the existence of any real emancipatory force in modern society.
Secondly, that the political significance which he attributed to the work of
critical intellectuals was a reversion to the pre-Marxian conception of the
processes of social change, closely resembling the outlook of the young
Hegelian and critical critics.”[48] The
overriding concern of the Frankfurt school with cultural phenomena -that is
with the manifestation and product of human consciousness. This also involved a
particular interest in the individual as a center of thought and action and in
psychology, especially in the form of psychoanalysis.”[49]
Also,
Horkheimer, on becoming the director of the Institute launched an empirical
study of workers’ attitude in Germany.”[50]
In exile also the question of the relation between critical theory and
empirical research emerged in a more acute form, for the development of a
distinctive school of social theory, hostile to positivism/empiricism, took
place in an environment in which the social sciences were oriented primarily to
empirical investigation.”[51]
5.3 The Birth of Analytic
Philosophy
Every
human being is afforded with an accessible opportunity to participate in the
system of commonly held philosophical beliefs and doctrines; which is widely
held to be an offshoot of a defined or given tradition. The general history of
philosophy that falls under the context of time (around the nineteenth and
twentieth century), is a direct indicative of what can be relatively attributed
to the origins of “Analytic Philosophy.”[52]
As to what line of account and description that can be given to this sort of
philosophical tradition, the analytic philosophy can be said to be a particular
variant of philosophical tradition within the domains of western thought.[53]
Resulting
from the question of method and in an attempt to give an explanation of the
confrontation of analytic philosophy with the traditional conceptions of
philosophy; there is also a need to give a detailed description of what the
principle of analytic philosophy entails and its inception into the panorama of
contemporary systems of philosophical thoughts and beliefs. Analytic philosophy
is a philosophical school that submits to the view that language (which is
primarily concerned with the scientific communicative method of proposition and
meaning) is the basic and core foundation of other subjects of thoughts and
human reasoning.[54]
They are subjected to the position which affirms the analysis of the structure
of thought; which can only be ascertained when all that concerns linguistic
schemes, structures, and methods, are critically analyzed.[55]
Indisputably,
the penetration of analytic philosophy within the better parts of the
nineteenth and twentieth century, left marks of its domination and influence in
the academic terrains of the philosophical dimensions of America, Britain, and
Europe. Of course, it is of no insignificant telling that this philosophical
school was perceived to be the ideal and most reliable methodic approach; in
the quest for clarification of meaning and proposition. Therefore, the goal of
analytic philosophy is to discover what is true, rather than making provisions
of methodic explanations for living one’s life.[56]
Essentially,
there was a dramatic shift in the enterprise of philosophy. One tends to see
the radical twist and backdrop from “absolute idealism” which was a major and
influential philosophical movement before the advent of the analytic
philosophy. The activities of the analytic school became initiated by two major
figures in the circle of contemporary philosophy. These two philosophers-
Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore- were both contemporaries of the twentieth
century.
It
is recorded that this period was characterized by the uprising of the
systematic revolution; that uncompromising breakaway from the doctrine of the
Hegelian philosophical doctrine and system.[57]
The Hegelian philosophical system had most of its constituent on the model of
idealism; a subset of “metaphysical monism,” with the notion that: “The world
and all that concerns its entities or objects are nothing but illusions. As
such, the very nature of the universe is unreal, mentally or spiritually based,
rather than materially composed. Philosophers who were part of the school
include: F. H. Bradley, Bernard Bosanquet, and J. E. Mc Taggart.[58]
In
reaction to these shades of positions by the idealist, both Moore and Russell
gave their distinct views and postulations. Moore posited a synthetic tool
which helped in the analyzing languages with its meaning and propositions. This
led to the clarification of language to their ordinary forms, as it fits
suitably with the “common sense” view of the world. Russell on the other hand,
saw metaphysical language as loose and obscure; heavily pregnant with
ambiguities and nonsensical ideas. Hence, he recommended the principle of
“logical atomism,” which subjected every form of language to the domain of
linguistic analysis; were facts were rigourously examined for the invention of
a new language. It is worth mentioning, that the only criterion for the new
language to be considered as valid, necessarily needs to be in absolute
correspondence to the facts. This shows that philosophy is deeply concerned
with the task of clarification other than discovery; and the unending pursuit
of meaning rather truth.[59]
Another
outlook relatively linked with the analytical philosophy invasion, is the
philosophical insights of Ludwig Wittgenstein; of all of which were reflected
through the volumes of his ideas in one of his basic writings: “Tractatus
Logico Philosophicus.” This piece of writing came into the break of recognition
in the year 1919. Wittgenstein’s philosophical analysis is characterized by the
logical assumption that language contains a “logical skeleton” whose sole
function is- “to state facts.” He based this argument on the exercise of his
thought other than “observation.”[60]
More
seriously, he assumed that all languages are strikingly similar, despite their
superficial differences. Although he later discovered a flaw in his analogy, by
saying that the only way one should analyze language is by a careful
observation of its usage and operations, not by mere thinking (which is a
product of logical atomism). Hence, he shifted the pattern of analysis which
was engrossed in logic and the “construction of a perfect language.”[61]
The
reverse became the case. Wittgenstein liberated himself from the thought
patterns of Russell, conforming himself to the postulations of Moore. This made
him give in to the “analysis of ordinary language” whose facts can be clarified
and actualized by its conformity with the “criterion of common sense.” This
made him see language as a form of life rather than a single pattern alone.
Consequently, the business of philosophical analysis should be solely concerned
with a careful description of language, than its definition and explanations.[62]
6.0 CONCLUSION
The
necessary requirement for the even balance and equilibrium of the social and
economic structure of the society, have undergone different stages of
transition through the infiltration of the critical tool of analysis. Spurred
by the need to create a unique assessment of universe in midst of its social,
economic and political constrains, the School of Frankfurt developed and
formulated the Critical Theory. This tool served as a liberating force of
revolution and analytical criticism against the then uprising crisis of the
Marxian socio-economic and political ideology.
Ostensibly,
the volumes of these shades of ideas represented in this piece of writing have
shed insightful lines of manifestations on what contemporary philosophy should
rightly entail. In this paper all the points of the table of contents have been
highlighted, which fulfills the responsibility of exposing the philosophical
literature of the School of Frankfurt and the Critical Theory.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adorno,
Theodor. Minima Moralia: Reflections on a
Damaged Life (ed.) E.F.N. Jephcott. New York: Verso Publishers, 2005.
Bottomore,
Tom. The Frankfurt School and Its
Critics. New York: Routledge, 1989.
Carver,
Terrell Marx and Marxism, United
Kingdom: Manchester University Press, 1991.
Corradetti,
Claudio. The Frankfurt School and
Critical Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Originally published:
October 21, 2011.
Campbell,
M. Heather. The Britannica Guide to
Political and Social Movements that Changed The Modern World. New York:
Britannica Educational Publishing, 2010.
Dubiel,
Helmut. The Origins of Critical Theory:
An Interview With Leo Lowenthal. By in Telos. Telos Press Publishing 1968.
D.
Rasmussen. Critical Theory and
Philosophy. In Rasmussen, D. (ed.), The Handbook of Critical Theory,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
Dummett,
Michael. Origins of Analytical
Philosophy. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2014.
Dmitriev, V.K. Economic Essays on
Value, Competition and Utility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1974.
Glock,
Hans-Johann. What Is Analytic Philosophy?
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Howard, M.C. and King, J.E. A History of Marxian Economics. Volume
II, Chapter 12, Section III, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Horkheimer,
Max. Traditional and Critical Theory, trans.
by Matthew J. O’Connell and Others. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company,
1972.
Horkheimer,
Max & Adorno, Theodor Dialectic of
enlightenment ed. Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, trans. Edmund Jephcott). California: Stanford University Press, 2002.
Jay,
Martin. The Dialectical Imagination. A History of the Frankfurt School and
the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950. London: Heinemann, 1973.
J. Bohman. Critical Theory and Democracy. In: Rasmussen, D. (ed.), The
Handbook of Critical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Jacobs,
Jack. Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives, and
Antisemitism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Haugen,
Brenda. Adolf Hitler Dictator of Nazi
Germany. New York: Compass Point Books, 2006.
Kliman, Andrrew. Reclaiming Marx's Capital.
Maryland: Lexington Books, 2007.
Kuhn, Rick. Henryk Grossman and the Recovery of
Marxism. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007.
Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts in
Collected Works, Vol.3, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975.
Marx,
Karl. Preface to A Contribution to
Critique of Political Economy in Collected Works, Vol. 29, London: Lawrence
and Wishart, 1975.
Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political
Economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986.
Weatland,
Thomas. The Frankfurt School in Exile.
London: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.
Preston,
Aaron. Analytic Philosophy: The History
of An Illusion. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010.
Raymond,
Guess. The Idea of A Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School.
Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Searle,
John. Contemporary Philosophy in the
United States, in N. Bunnin and E. P. Tsui-James (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, 2nd
ed., Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, Inc., 2003.
Stumpf,
Enoch Samuel. Philosophy: History and
Problems. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1997.
Wiggershaus,
Rolf. The Frankfurt School: Its History,
Theories, and Political Significance. trans. Michael Robertson. Massachusetts:
MIT Press, 1994.
CONSULTED ONLINE SOURCES
[1] Cf. Rolf Wiggershaus, The
Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. trans.
Michael Robertson (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1994), p. 1-2.
[2] Cf. Wiggershaus, The
Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. p.
2-4.
[3] Cf. Wiggershaus, The
Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. p.
4-5.
[4]
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm
[5]
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm
[6] Terrell Carver, Marx and Marxism, (United Kingdom:
Manchester University Press, 1991) p. 185.
[7] Terrell Carver, Marx and Marxism, (United Kingdom:
Manchester University Press, 1991) p. 185.
[8] Terrell Carver, Marx and
Marxism, (United Kingdom: Manchester University Press, 1991) p. 187.
[9]Cf. Karl Marx, Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts in Collected Works, Vol.3, (London: Lawrence and
Wishart, 1975), pp. 302-304.
[10] Cf. Karl Marx, Preface to A
Contribution to Critique of Political Economy in Collected Works, Vol. 29,
(London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975), pp. 261-265.
[11] Cf. Terrell Carver, Marx and
Marxism, (United Kingdom: Manchester University Press, 1991) p. 187.
[12]Cf. V. K. Dmitriev, Economic Essays on Value, Competition and
Utility. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), p. 45.
[13]
M.C. Howard
and J. E. King, A History of Marxian
Economics: Volume II, Chapter 12, Section III, (USA: Princeton University
Press, 1992), p. 26.
[14] Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital",
(Maryland: Lexington Books) p. 208.
[16]
Claudio Corradetti ,The Frankfurt School
and Critical Theory, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Originally
published: October 21, 2011).
[17]Cf. The Origins of Critical Theory: An interview with Leo Lowenthal
by Helmut Dubiel (Telos Press
Publishing, 1968), p. 25.
[18] Cf. RickKuhn, Henryk Grossman and the Recovery of
Marxism (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007), p. 14.
[19] Max Horkheimer, Traditional
and Critical Theory, trans. by Matthew J. O’Connell and others (New York:
The Continuum Publishing Company, 1972) p. 188
[20]ibid
[21]Rasmussen,
D., Critical Theory and Philosophy In
Rasmussen, D. (ed.), The Handbook of Critical Theory, (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996), p .18
[22]Geuss,
Raymond (1981). The Idea of A Critical Theory: Habermas and The Frankfurt
School. Cambridge University Press, p. 58
[23]Martin
Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the
Institute of Social Research 1923–1950. (London: Heinemann, 1973,) p. 21.
[24]Bohman, J. "Critical Theory and Democracy" In:
Rasmussen, D. (ed.), The Handbook of Critical Theory, (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996), p. 190.
[25]Max Horkheimer, Traditional
and Critical Theory, trans. by Matthew J. O’Connell and others (New York:
The Continuum Publishing Company, 1972), p. 219.
[28]Cf. Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political
Economy (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1986), p. 45. preface
[29] Max Horkheimer & Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment. trans.
Edmund Jephcott (California: Stanford
University Press, 2002), p. 1.
[30] Max Horkheimer & Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 3.
[31] Theodor Adorno, Minima
Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life (ed.), E.F.N. Jephcott (New York: Verso Publishers,
2005), p. i.
[32] https//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minima_Moralia
[33] Theodor Adorno, Minima
Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life. p. 25.
[34] Cf. Brenda Haugen, Adolf Hitler Dictator of Nazi Germany
(New York: Compass point Books, 2006), P. 56.
[35] Heather M. Campbell, the Britannica Guide to Political and Social Movements that Changed the
Modern World (New York: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2010), P. 207.
[36] Heather
M. Campbell, the Britannica Guide to
Political and Social Movements that Changed the Modern World, p. 207.
[37] Heather M. Campbell, the Britannica Guide to Political and Social Movements that Changed
the Modern World (New York: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2010), P.
212.
[38] Cf. Jack Jacobs, Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives, and Antisemitism (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2015),P. 45.
[39] Cf. Thomas Weatland, the Frankfurt School in Exile (London: University of Minnesota
Press, 2009), P. 35.
[40] Cf. Jack Jacobs, Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives, and Antisemitism, P. 44.
[41] Cf. Thomas Weatland, The Frankfurt School in Exile, P. 35.
[42] Cf. Thomas Weatland, The Frankfurt School in Exile, p. 61.
[43] Cf. Tom Bottomore, The
Frankfurt School and Its Critics (New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 11.
[44] Cf. Bottomore, The Frankfurt
School and Its Critics, p. 8.
[45] Tom Bottomore, The Frankfurt
School and Its Critics (New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 8.
[46] Tom Bottomore, The Frankfurt
School and Its Critics, p. 13.
[47] Tom Bottomore, The Frankfurt
School and Its Critics, p. 13.
[48] Tom Bottomore, The Frankfurt
School and Its Critics, p. 17.
[49] Tom Bottomore, The Frankfurt
School and Its Critics, p. 19.
[50] Tom Bottomore, The Frankfurt
School and Its Critics, p. 22.
[51] Tom Bottomore, The Frankfurt
School and Its Critics (New York: Routledge, 1989), p.22.
[52] Cf. Michael Dummett, Origins
of Analytical Philosophy (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2014), p. 1.
[53] Cf. John Searle, Contemporary
Philosophy in the United States, in N. Bunnin and E. P. Tsui-James (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, 2nd
ed., (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, Inc., 2003), p. 1.
[54] Cf. Hans-Johann Glock, What
is Analytic Philosophy? (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p.
122.
[55] Cf. Glock, What is Analytic
Philosophy? p. 122.
[56] Cf. Aaron Preston, Analytic
Philosophy: The History of An Illusion (New York: Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2010), p. 7-11.
[57] Cf. Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy:
History and Problems (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1997), p. 447.
[58] Cf. Stumpf, Philosophy:
History and Problems. p. 447.
[59] Cf. Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy:
History and Problems (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1997), p. 448.
[60] Cf. Stumpf, Philosophy:
History and Problems. p. 461.
[61] Cf. Stumpf, Philosophy:
History and Problems. p. 463.
[62] Cf. Stumpf, Philosophy:
History and Problems. p. 463.
Comments
Post a Comment