Author: M. Farahi Tojegi
A Brief Overview of the Frankfurt School (Part 4)
-
Philosophical Background
As mentioned earlier, the true founders of Critical Theory were Lukács and Gramsci. While both remained Marxists, they revisited Marxism by drawing on the ideas of Hegel and Weber. Gramsci criticized Marxism for its materialism and mechanical outlook. His main focus of interest was hegemony, which refers to a form of lasting and coherent authority. This concept was not limited to control over production but also incorporated the cultural element.
Gramsci focused on several points, including:
-
How does a civil society acquire its existing structure? In response, he analyzed the behavior of intellectuals based on the organization of intellectual activity. In his view, the main factor in organizing civil society is the intellectual structure.
-
Identifying the mechanisms in society used to achieve collective consensus. These tools and mechanisms are not merely instruments of the ruling class’s domination but also involve influential cultural elements.
Lukács’s thought bridged the ideas of Max Weber and Karl Marx in interpreting modern society. By considering Marx’s view of the economic base and Weber’s view of rationality, he offered a new interpretation of modern society. Ultimately, he provided a broader understanding of commodity and class consciousness. This interpretation had a major influence on the theoretical framework of Critical Theory.
Criticism of Critical Theory
The breadth of criticism
Due to the wide scope of Critical Theory’s influence, the range of criticisms against it is diverse — from idealist to realist theorists. To keep this discussion concise, this section highlights only the most significant criticisms directed at the general nature and identity of the school.
-
Interdisciplinary Approach — Advantages and Disadvantages
The foundation of Critical Theory is opposition to positivism. In this regard, critical thinkers have drawn on findings from multiple fields (politics, economics, literature, art, psychology, etc.) to critique positivism. This has allowed the interdisciplinary model to be reflected effectively in their method.
While this is a strength of Critical Theory, as Chud Morn has shown, one of the difficulties of interdisciplinary theory — especially when the number of participating fields greatly increases — is the emergence of “truth ambiguity.” The reason is that the multiplicity of disciplines can undermine the organization of knowledge, which is a fundamental principle in the development and presentation of knowledge.
From the narratives within Critical Theory, one can conclude that it suffers from a lack of clarity in determining the contribution and proportion of the disciplines involved in its formation. Even among the leading figures of the school — such as Horkheimer, Adorno, and Benjamin — these differences can be seen, sometimes even within the thought of a single thinker. This indicates that the interdisciplinary nature of the school has not yet achieved the necessary cohesion and unity.
-
Ambiguity in Social Affiliation
Although interdisciplinary theories draw on multiple areas of knowledge to understand a phenomenon, they are ultimately expected to belong to a specific scientific field that guides their studies and findings. In reality, interdisciplinarity should ultimately lead to integration of scientific disciplines in a way that improves learning and advances methods of understanding.[1]
Neglecting this in the formation and development of Critical Theory has resulted in an unclear role for different fields within it. Consequently, divergent literary, philosophical, artistic, and social tendencies — which Nodari has discussed extensively — have played a role in the school’s development. This scientific diversity and entanglement have made reinterpreting its method in the humanities and social sciences more challenging.
-
The Incomplete Formulation of the “Idea of Emancipation”
Although Critical Theory made great efforts to critique positivism, it should not be overlooked that validating quasi-causal laws ultimately entangled the school in overarching positivist principles.[2]
In other words, the emancipation envisioned by Critical Theory has not been fully realized within its own foundations, and thus we see the acceptance of ideas with a positivist flavor by its theorists. The dialogue formed between the social sciences and the natural sciences within this school — in which figures like Habermas played a major role — has ultimately tended to benefit positivism. This outcome is far from ideal for Critical Theory.
Perhaps this is why there is a degree of ambiguity in the Frankfurt School’s stance on the core question of how to attain knowledge of reality. These ambiguities were directly challenged by Habermas, who proposed reconstructing Critical Theory in order to free it from unresolved dualities and contradictions within the Frankfurt School.[3]
continues…
Previous Part/ Next Part
References:
[1]. Eftekhari, 2017, p. 58.
[2]. Eftekhari, 2017, p. 59.
[3]. Eftekhari, 2017, p. 60.
