Author: M. Farahi Tojegi
A Brief Overview of the Frankfurt School (Part 3)
The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory
In the previous note, the real founders of Critical Theory—Lukacs and Gramsci—were introduced. It was mentioned that although these two thinkers were Marxists, they revisited Marxism by drawing on the ideas of Hegel and Weber.
Critical Theory has also been referred to as the Frankfurt School; although the two concepts are not identical, they have at times been regarded as the same. In fact, Critical Theory can be considered a part of the Frankfurt School, since other theories have also been developed within this school.
This term has been used for several reasons:
-
According to Horkheimer, Critical Theory stands in opposition to Traditional Theory; therefore, its issues and subjects differ from those discussed in traditional theories of society.
-
It differs from Marxism and Positivism, and it critiques Marxist, positivist, and interpretive viewpoints.
The rise and spread of the Frankfurt School is tied to the emergence and growth of the critical perspective in the city of Frankfurt, Germany. This naming was due to the establishment of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt. (1)
It should be noted, however, that the title Frankfurt School was not used until the institute’s members returned to Germany. (2)
The Main Factors Influencing the Formation of Critical Theory
-
Social Contexts
Critical Theory was shaped by the various conditions of its own time; therefore, with the decline of those conditions and factors, it took on a new form and eventually went into decline.
The major social conditions behind Critical Theory in capitalist society included the following developments:
-
The concentration of capital through the growth of monopoly by multinational corporations in exploiting nations.
-
The emergence and independence of local states.
-
The growth of national economies.
-
Changes in social structure, especially in social status and the rising awareness of the working class.
-
The growth of the middle class.
-
The rise of right-wing political parties.
-
The failure of leftist parties’ policies.
-
The growth of radical political and student movements.
-
The failure of Marx’s prediction regarding a workers’ revolution in industrial countries, and instead, the working class siding with the capitalist system.
Marcuse, for instance, considered the occurrence of revolution in advanced industrial societies—whether capitalist or socialist—both inevitable and necessary. He believed that the efforts of these societies to suppress intellectuals and create better living conditions for those affected by technological development were futile. Marcuse did not see future revolution coming from the working class. In his view, workers, farmers, and middle groups should no longer be considered revolutionary forces; they had been assimilated into the technological system and, due to higher wages and relative prosperity, had accepted compromise and submission. Workers today, he argued, have mutual understanding and cooperation with the bourgeois middle classes and contribute to the expansion of capitalist exploitation. Unlike the recent past, the working class has lost all its ideals.
This change in social conditions led to differing interpretations among Critical Theorists regarding the working class. In the early stages, especially in the 1920s and 1930s, the main focus was on the working class and labor movements in Germany and other European countries. However, in later stages (the 1940s and beyond), very little attention was paid to labor issues, shifting instead to a more holistic perspective.
-
One of the most significant structural changes in Western societies concerned the structure of the state and the administrative system. In the early decades of the 20th century, many independent states were formed worldwide, each seeking its own national interests. At the same time, the expansion of bureaucracy and emphasis on instrumental rationality in achieving goals became a major issue for society and intellectuals. These two new phenomena (the state and bureaucracy) had been less prominent in the 19th century. Thus, by the mid-20th century, questions such as state and economy, state and culture, state and bureaucracy, bureaucracy and knowledge, etc., became important. These developments laid the groundwork for the emergence of the theory of statism and the theory of rationalization.
-
Weber’s Influence on the Formation of Critical Theory
Alongside Marx, Max Weber offered an independent interpretation of capitalist society. His theory of society rested on several principles:
-
For Weber, the main subject of sociological study is social action, examined through interpretive methods.
-
Social reality exists independently of the researcher, and research must be carried out free from ideology and values.
-
In studying structures and social relations in modern society, Weber focused on authority. He identified three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. In modern society, the dominant form is legal-rational authority, characterized by bureaucracy and rationality.
-
Legal-rational rationality stands in contrast to scientific, theoretical, and substantive rationalities, and it is general and impersonal. This rationality marks the difference between modern and traditional societies.
Weber identified six features of formal legal rationality: calculation, predictability, control, substitution of human labor with technology, profitability, and irrational consequences. In the new bureaucratic system, legal-rational rationality becomes the dominant form of rationality, replacing human sovereignty with technological dominance. As technology increasingly governs humanity and society, Weber argued that there is no escape from this system, referring to it as the “iron cage.”
Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and Habermas were influenced by Weber’s ideas and sought to combine the thought of Marx, Weber, and Freud. Building on Weber’s views, they critiqued capitalist society and thought. The Frankfurt School’s emphasis on the negative and pessimistic aspects of technological domination, industrial culture, bureaucracy, and technological-legal rationality—and its rejection of historical determinism—was deeply influenced by Weber.
Major Commonalities Between Weber’s Thought and Critical Theory
-
Belief in technological rationality, or a form of rationality representing a social system dominated by the ruling forces of society through technology.
-
A pessimistic view of the modern world, since technological rationality is dominant and there is no effective force to oppose it.
Marcuse, in his book One-Dimensional Man, stated that the two main classes of capitalist society—bourgeoisie and industrial workers—had disappeared as effective agents, and no particular form of class domination existed anymore. Instead, domination was exercised through impersonal power (scientific-technological rationality) stemming from mass consumption, which in turn sustained the flow of production.
Continues…
Previous Part
References:
- Azad Armaki, 1997, p. 133.
- Bottomore, 1991, p. 14.
