Dialectic of Enlightenment is undoubtedly the most influential publication of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Written during the Second World War and circulated privately, it appeared in a printed edition in Amsterdam in 1947. "What we had set out to do," the authors write in the Preface, "was nothing less than to explain why humanity, instead of entering a truly human state, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism." Yet the work goes far beyond a mere critique of (...) contemporary events. Historically remote developments, indeed, the birth of Western history and of subjectivity itself out of the struggle against natural forces, as represented in myths, are connected in a wide arch to the most threatening experiences of the present. The book consists in five chapters, at first glance unconnected, together with a number of shorter notes. The various analyses concern such phenomena as the detachment of science from practical life, formalized morality, the manipulative nature of entertainment culture, and a paranoid behavioral structure, expressed in aggressive anti-Semitism, that marks the limits of enlightenment. The authors perceive a common element in these phenomena, the tendency toward self-destruction of the guiding criteria inherent in enlightenment thought from the beginning. Using historical analyses to elucidate the present, they show, against the background of a prehistory of subjectivity, why the National Socialist terror was not an aberration of modern history but was rooted deeply in the fundamental characteristics of Western civilization. Adorno and Horkheimer see the self-destruction of Western reason as grounded in a historical and fateful dialectic between the domination of external nature and society. They trace enlightenment, which split these spheres apart, back to its mythical roots. Enlightenment and myth, therefore, are not irreconcilable opposites, but dialectically mediated qualities of both real and intellectual life. "Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology." This paradox is the fundamental thesis of the book. This new translation, based on the text in the complete edition of the works of Max Horkheimer, contains textual variants, commentary upon them, and an editorial discussion of the position of this work in the development of Critical Theory. (shrink)

"Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) was a leading figure in The Frankfurt School, a renowned body of philosophers and social theorists, including Adorno and Marcuse, who examined critically the changes in and development of capitalist society. Much of what has become known as the New Left can be traced back to Horkheimer, his social philosophy and his analysis of contemporary culture." "First published in 1947 Eclipse of Reason is the most lucid and fundamental statement of the Critical Theory put forward (...) by the Frankfurt School, surveying and demonstrating the gradual ascendancy of Reason in Western philosophy, its eventual total application to all spheres of life, and what he considers its present reified domination. It acts as a companion to the classic work that Horkheimer wrote with Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment."--BOOK JACKET. (shrink)

This book provides an intellectual biography of Max Horkheimer during the early and middle phases of his life and analyzes his model of early Critical Theory.

The first Ukrainian translation of Max Horkheimer's article "History and Psychology", made by Vitaly Bryzhnik under the scientific and literary editorship of Ivan Ivashchenko.

These essays, written in the 1930s and 1940s, represent a first selection in English from the major work of the founder of the famous institute for Social ...

Although social philosophy is the focus of general philosophical concern, it is in no better shape today than most philosophical, indeed most fundamentally intellectual, efforts. One is unable to f...

These essays, written between 1949 and 1967, focus on a single theme: the triumph in the twentieth century of the state-bureaucratic apparatus and ‘instrumental reason’ and the concomitant liquidation of the individual and the basic social institutions and relationships associated with the individual.

L'idéalisme comprend le devoir moral comme une catégorie éternelle et le formule en lois qui s'adressent aux sentiments de chaque individu. Le matérialisme, au contraire, cherche à expliquer la conscience morale par les conditions sociales et à l’exposer historiquement. L'article ci-dessus donne les grandes lignes d'une telle analyse. Il distingue entre la morale, phénomène de notre temps, l'éthique de l'antiquité et la conception autoritaire du moyen âge. La morale se base essentiellement sur la société bourgeoise, dans laquelle l'intérêt particulier et (...) l’intérêt général sont distincts. L'individu qui, dans l'activité quotidienne, ne recherche que son propre avantage, éprouve à l’appel de sa conscience, le souci de la société. L'auteur démontre ce fait au moyen d'une analyse de l’impératif catégorique de Kant.La morale bourgeoise contient déjà les germes de sa victoire sur elle- même. Elle tend vers une société dans laquelle le devoir et l'intérêt ne seront plus séparés. On retrouve cette tendance non seulement chez Kant, mais encore chez d'autres grands philosophes bourgeois. Les idées de justice, d'égalité et de liberté prennent peu à peu, au fur et à mesure que la société bourgeoise se développe, une autre signification que celle qu'elles paraissent avoir eue au début ; elles exigent aujourd'hui la modification des conditions pour l'introduction desquelles elles ont pourtant été proclamées à l'origine. Cette dialectique est une des raisons de la perplexité actuelle en matière d’idées sur le monde et la vie. Dans l'exposition de cette dialectique, l'auteur montre comment les idées bourgeoises ne vivent plus aujourd'hui dans la pensée idéaliste, mais bien plus dans la pensée matérialiste. Les deux formes principales d’expression de la morale ont actuellement, d’après M. Horkheimer, la pitié et la politique. Elles ne peuvent pas être rationnellement liées l'une à l'autre, mais le sens moral se manifeste dans toutes deux.L'impulsion morale est vivante non seulement dans la vie pratique, mais aussi dans la science. Le matérialisme nie la possibilité d'une science entièrement objective : les intérêts des hommes influencent la recherche scientifique. Il est vrai que ces intérêts, si sublimes qu'ils puissent être, ne sont pas l'émanation d’un sujet libre, comme l'enseigne l'idéalisme, mais la conséquence nécessaire du processus historique. Aussi le matérialisme n’exige- t-il nullement, pour autant que le respect de la vérité reste l'élément de base, le manque de chaque jugement moral dans la science. La croyance du positivisme actuel à la possibilité de faire des constatations affranchies de toute théorie, comme d'ailleurs son aversion envers toute théorie en général, sont dues à ce qu’il ne possède pas lui-même de grandes idées directrices. La théorie naît partout où les connaissances sont sciemment rapportées à un but, c'est-à-dire strictement en relation avec des valeurs de la pratique.Philosophical idealism conceives moral obligation as an eternal category, and formulates it in commandments that appeal to individual sentiment. Philosophical materialism on the other hand, endeavours to explain moral consciousness in terms of social conditions, and to present it in its historical perspective. This essay attempts to furnish the main features for such an analysis. It distinguishes ethics, as a phenomenon of modern times, from that of ancient times, and from the authoritative attitude in the middle ages. Its foundation rests on bourgeois society in which individual and collective interests become sharply separated from each other. The individual, who in his daily work looks to his private interests, experiences through his conscience, concern for the public welfare. H. proves this through his analysis of Kant’s categorical imperative.Bourgeois morality already contains within itself the seeds of its own dissolution. It indicates a society in which duty and interest are no longer separate. This tendency in ethics becomes manifest, not only in Kant, but also in other great philosophers of bourgeois society. With the development of the latter the ideas of Justice, Equality, and Freedom acquire a content other than that they seem to have possessed in their genesis, and to-day require that change in conditions, to effect which, they were originally introduced. This dialectical process is one of the causes of the present-day philosophical uncertainty. H. shows in his exposition of this dialectical process, how bourgeois ideas are no longer active in idealist thought, but are so in materialist thought.The two main forms in which contemporary ethics expresses itself, are according to H. pity and politics, which cannot indeed, in a rational way, be connected one to the other. Both arise out of a moral sentiment. This moral impulse is active not only in practical life, but also in knowledge. Philosophical materialism denies the possibility of completely objective knowledge : men’s interests find expression also in their cognition. Indeed, however sublime these interests are, they do not spring from „free“ beings, as idealism maintains, but are the necessary results of historical processes.Accordingly, materialism in no way claims for knowledge, freedom from all subjective valuations, but only that a consideration for truth, remain the dominant characteristic. The belief of modern positivism in the possibility of attitudes free from all valuations, as well as its disinclination for all theory, is due to the fact that it possesses no great leading ideas. In all cases is theory vindicated, only when knowledge has a definite aim, that is, when it is related to practical values. (shrink)

Some theorists on the left believe that “Islamism is a creative space for political articulations of protest against present inequalities” and that “Islamism is not a religious discourse, but a political one. It is a debate about modernity.”1 Other left apologists for Islamism treat it solely as a contestation of capitalist globalization and therefore attribute a progressive character to it.2 To do so, however, they have to remain blithely oblivious to the fact that a religious fundamentalism,3 and not a progressive (...) movement, is at work. Scholars of the left like Susan Buck-Morss could not be more wrong when they invoke…. (shrink)

These essays reveal another side of Horkheimer, focusing on his remarkable contributions to critical theory in the 1930s. Max Horkheimer is well known as the director of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and as a sometime collaborator with Theodor Adorno, especially on their classic Dialectic of Enlightenment. These essays reveal another side of Horkheimer, focusing on his remarkable contributions to critical theory in the 1930s. Included are Horkheimer's inaugural address as director of the Institute, in (...) which he outlines the interdisciplinary research program that would dominate the initial phase of the Frankfurt School, his first full monograph, and a number of other pieces published in the 1930s. The essays, most of which have not appeared in English before, are surprisingly relevant to current post-philosophy debates, notably "On the Problem of Truth," with its focus on pragmatism, and "The Rationalism Debate in Current Philosophy," a sustained critique of the post-Cartesian philosophy of consciousness. Horkheimer's 1933 critique of Kantian ethics, "Materialism and Morality," is of particular interest given the current reaction to the neo-Kantian aspect of Habermas's work. There are also essays relevant to the current foundations debate within Continental philosophy, and the rationality/relativism question is sustained throughout the volume. (shrink)

This thesis argues for a reconsideration of the social theories of Max Horkheimer and C. Wright Mills in order to increase our understanding of the ideological forces at play in modern society. Despite clear similarities in their work in terms of both subject matter and perspective, the discipline of political science lacks a critical comparison of their writings. I demonstrate that a comprehensive and comparative reading of Horkheimer and Mills can offer a new way to address many issues (...) that remain at the heart of writings on ideology, the production of knowledge, and the culture industry. Instead of simply studying the concept of ideology as it appears in each theorist's writings, I propose to place their views in dialogue with one another. Taken together, Horkheimer and Mills provide an illuminating and dynamic perspective on the current, and often conflicting approaches to the theory of ideology. ;Much of the current literature on ideology reflects fixed positions with little room for compromise. The impasse in the study of ideology revolves around the conceptualization of ideology as either enabling or constraining critical consciousness. A combination of the writings of Horkheimer and Mills can guide social theorists beyond the present impasse towards a reflexive theory of ideology, one that considers its own social and ethical presuppositions and normative values. (shrink)

These critical remarks attempt to point out the role which modern philosophical anthropology can play in historical theories of the present day. In order to grasp correctly the historical tendencies of the present period, it is necessary to take into account the special characteristics of modern man. Modern philosophical anthropology is criticized by H. because it attempts to picture man in his fundamental essence as a permanent and unchangeable entity, instead of studying him from the viewpoint of a theory of (...) historical change. Today it is necessary to emphasize the difference in human qualities between different social groups and to understand the interconnection between the changes of human types and the whole social development. But philosophical anthropology attempts to consider the essence of man as permanent and independent of historical change, and thus to impart meaning to individual and social life. In this way it proves its relationship to metaphysics and religion. In contradiction to this, H. indicates the results that might be achieved on the basis of an historical approach. He shows how the attitude of modern man towards contracts has changed in the last decades ; how the principle of equality has taken on an entirely different meaning ; how the human qualities of sympathy and understanding change their essence and their functions and are being transferred from one social group to another.Pour saisir exactement les tendances historiques de l'époque actuelle, il est nécessaire de tenir compte aussi du caractère propre et des transformations des hommes d'aujourd'hui. L'anthropologie philosophique moderne est critiquée par H. parce qu'elle cherche à dessiner une image éternelle de l'homme, alors que les études anthropologiques devraient être pénétrées d'esprit historique. Alors qu’il importe aujourd’hui de dégager les différences des qualités humaines dans les divers groupes sociaux, de comprendre le lien des transformations des types humains et de l’évolution de la société dans son ensemble, l’anthropologie philosophique veut fixer une fois pour toutes l'essence de l’homme et donner par là un sens à l’existence individuelle et sociale. Elle montre ainsi qu’elle est solidaire de la métaphysique et de la religion. H. oppose à cette méthode une recherche anthropologique qui serait orientée aux problèmes historiques, et il donne quelques indications sur cette anthropologie. J1 montre comment l’attitude de l’homme actuel à l’égard des engagements et des traités s’est transformée dans les dernières dizaines d’années, comment la categorie d'égalité comme détermination des hommes prend des significations toutes différentes, comment les qualités humaines de compréhension et de sympathie changent de nature et de fonction, passent d’un groupe social à un autre. (shrink)

All nine volumes of the Institute's journal are available as PDFs here: http://raumgegenzement.blogsport.de/2012/02/05/zeitschrift-fuer-sozialforschung-1932-1941/.

If Haecker's book on History and the Attitude of the Christian be considered as an index, there seems to be a strong humanistic current in present day Catholicism. Haecker develops in his book the Christian belief that history manifests the will of God, and that all wars, upheavals and revolutions really occur for the salvation of the soul of the individual. He opposes the modern trend to deify nation and race, and presents the elevation of man from his fall, and (...) his return to God, as the eternal goal of all that ever happens. Because Haecker insists upon the intrinsic value of each single man, because he refuses to accept the ruling totalitarian ideology of the day, even the non-Catholic can go a long way with him in his humanism.Horkheimer, however, demonstrates that the connection between this kind of humanism and Catholicism is a very loose one. The deep understanding of human misery that is evident in Haecker's pages fits other convictions and persuasions just as well as it does a Catholic philosophy. Haecker's contention that to reject a sense and a meaning transcending the temporal world is to drive man to despair, does not invalidate the rejection of a supernatural significance. Despair is no argument against truth. Grief over the present is well justified ; nevertheless an attitude is possible which permits of a positive cooperation in the historical tasks of the day.Le livre de Haecker sur la philosophie chrétienne de l'histoire donne à Horkheimer l'occasion de présenter quelques remarques de principe au sujet du courant humaniste dans le catholicisme contemporain. Haecker développe Vidée chrétienne que l'histoire est soumise à la volonté de Dieu, et que dans toutes les guerres, les crises et les révolutions, c'est en vérité le salut de l'âme individuelle qui est en jeu. Il s'oppose à la divinisation moderne du peuple et de la race, et montre dans le relèvement de l'homme après la chute et dans son retour à Dieu le but éternel du devenir. Dans cette affirmation de la valeur de chaque personne, dans la négation des idéologies totalitaires régnantes, s’exprime un humanisme que le philosophe non-catholique peut reconnaître et approuver.Cependant, Horkheimer indique que le lien de cet humanisme et du catholicisme est — logiquement — très lâche. La compréhension de la misère humaine, qui apparaît dans le livre de Haecker, ne peut nullement confirmer la vision catholique du monde, elle s'adapte aussi bien à d'autres convictions. Certes, on comprend l'affirmation de Haecker que le refus de la transcendance doit mener l'homme au désespoir ; mais la négation d'une signification supranaturelle n'est pas ainsi réfutée : le désespoir n'est pas un argument contre la vérité. La tristesse légitime que nous inspire le présent, appelle, bien loin de l'exclure, la décision de travailler aux tâches que l'histoire nous assigne. (shrink)

Chaque science comprend des jugements ayant trait à Fa venir, non seulement par la formation de „types abstraits“ et de lois (ce qu’on a appelé la „prévision“), mais par des „prédictions“ concrètes, impliquées dans chaque loi scientifique. Les jugements hypothétiques et catégoriques (prévisions et prédictions) exercent, dans le développement des sciences, une influence mutuelle les uns sur les autres. — A l’encontre de la conception traditionnelle, H. est d’avis que la prévision scientifique est facilitée si elle porte plutôt sur des (...) objets pour lesquels la volonté joue un rôle que si elle porte sur la nature hors de l’homme. La prédiction sociologique sera d’autant plus exacte que les événements historiques perdront le caractère de faits provenant d’un mécanisme aveugle et seront en réalité l’oeuvre de la liberté de l’homme.Every science utilizes judgments which embody prediction of the future : this is so, not only in the construction of „abstract types“ and laws (prévision) but also of concrete predictions (prédiction) which are implicated in such laws. Hypothetical and categorical judgments mutually influence each other in the progress of science. H. argues in opposition to the traditional conception, that scientific prediction is less difficult and more reliable in such fields where human freedom plays a role, than in nature external to man. Sociological prediction, will thus become more perfect the more readily social events lose their blind and mechanistic character, and the more they become the works of a rational condition of free man. (shrink)

Bergson develops, along with his metaphysic, a positivist theory of science. That both are strongly interrelated in his works is a demonstration of their close relationship, which also is characteristic of the present philosophical situation. Bergson has in general accentuated those problems of methodology and matter that had been neglected by contemporary science. He has contributed in an important way to the development of psychology and biology, and his central theme, — the problem of time in its reality — is (...) a focal category of every theory of history. Bergson has paid special attention to the difference between time that is lived and that abstract time that dominates in the natural sciences. Frequently his discussions approximate a dialectic approach. H. stresses these tendencies in his discussion of the new book. The subordination of Bergson’s thought to his metaphysical ends, however, has interfered with those parts of his works that might have otherwise borne fruit. Instead of using his psychological analyses to penetrate more clearly into historical relationships, he uses them as supports for his vision of „creative development”. The contradiction that pervades Bergson’s entire philosophy manifests itself in the unhistorical character of this thought and the attempt to define the function of time in its theoretical implications. H. demonstrates that Bergson is led to negate time because he elevates the concept to a metaphysical principle. Bergson développe en même temps que sa métaphysique une théorie positiviste de la science. Dans la mesure où ces deux aspects de son oeuvre sont manifestement en relation étroite, ils s’appuient et se conditionnent. Ce n’est pas seulement par là que l’oeuvre de Bergson est caractéristique pour la situation actuelle du mouvement des idées. La philosophie de Bergson a rempli dans une mesure particulièrement grande la tâche qui consistait à faire progresser de manière indépendante des problèmes méthodologiques et matériels que le travail scientifique contemporain négligeait. Psychologie et biologie lui doivent d’importantes contributions et se sont engagées en partie sous son influence dans des voies nouvelles. Son thème fondamental : le temps réel est une catégorie centrale de toute théorie de l'histoire, bien plus encore de toute pensée théorique qui cherche à embrasser l’ensemble. Bergson a distingué le temps vécu du temps abstrait des sciences de la nature et il en a fait l’objet de ses recherches personnelles. Souvent ainsi il a été conduit jusqu’au seuil de la dialectique. A l’occasion de son nouveau livre, H. met en lumière quelques-uns des passages où pointe la dialectique. La subordination de la pensée bergsonienne à une intention métaphysique ultime a cependant porté grand préjudice aux parties fécondes de son oeuvre. Au lieu de mettre ses analyses psychologiques au service d’une connaissance de l’ensemble historique différenciée et toujours consciente de ses propres hypothèses, ces analyses psychologiques chez Bergson lui-même ne sont destinées qu’à introduire et assurer son mythe de „L’Évolution créatrice“. La contradiction qui traverse toute la philosophie de Bergson réside dans l’opposition de sa pensée princi-piellement non historique et de l’effort pour saisir le rôle du temps. H. montre que Bergson doit nier le temps lorsqu’il l’érige en principe métaphysique. (shrink)

The text comments and explains the Ukrainian translation of Max Gorkheimer's paper “History and Psychology”.

In 1930, in Anfänge der bürgerlichen Geschichtsphilosophie, Horkheimer analyzes utopia in bourgeois philosophy of history and identifies two aspects: the criticism of what is, and the representation of what should be. Utopia therefore plays a revolutionary role in history. In 1937, in Traditionelle und kritische Theorie, Horkheimer changes opinion. Utopia is criticized as misleading, acquiescent to reality. In later writings, in a pessimistic view, the Director of the Frankfurt School describes contemporary society as a dystopia.

The law maintains, rather than challenges, the powers that be – or so it is commonly thought. In ‘Rackets and Spirit,’ a little known and untranslated essay, Max Horkheimer complicates this notion by attributing to law a ‘force of resistance’. He contends that, under certain conditions, the legal process develops a logic of its own, one that can become disjointed from the rationale of power. In this Critical Reflection, I look closely at the paragraph in which Horkheimer introduces (...) the notion of a ‘force of resistance’. I argue that Horkheimer develops a theme that he and Theodor W. Adorno return to in the Dialectic of Enlightenment: the spiritual instruments of domination, among them law, have the potential to turn against domination. At the same time, Horkheimer is clear that law does not resist automatically: it takes human agents to put the legal sphere into opposition to the political sphere. I illustrate this thought with respect to the recent history of federal abortion rights in the United States. (shrink)

Horkheimer's work contains many passages concerning moral and morally relevant problems, but one searches in vain for a completely elaborated moral philosophy. The rudiments thereof may be found primarily in “Materialism and Ethics” (1933) and in various passages of the “Juliette” portion of the Dialectic of Enlightenment. These would be quickly summarized, but could not thereby be adequately elucidated. If the matter were to remain with the mere reproduction of these thoughts, one would have to reach the regrettable conclusion (...) — given the paucity of texts — that early critical theory had an ethics deficit. The attempt to read Horkheimer in such a way that the relevant passages open one's vision to an implicit moral philosophy — that is, one amenable to reconstruction—must rely upon other approaches. (shrink)

Max Horkheimer does not generally receive the scholarly attention given to other ‘Frankfurt School’ figures. This is in part because his early work seems contradictory, or unphilosophical. For example, Horkheimer seems, at various points (to use contemporary metaethical terms), like a constructivist, a moral realist, or a moral skeptic, and it is not clear how these views cohere. The goal of this article is to show that the contradictions regarding moral theory exist largely on the surface, and that (...) one can go below the surface to reconstruct a coherent position. Part I will examine Horkheimer’s skeptical critique of morality, and show that it leads to the realist position discussed in part II. Part III then shows that such realism can only be understood within a larger constructivist project, which elaborates on a minimal normativity present in human experience. This reconstruction should make sense of Horkheimer’s work, and show its contemporary relevance. (shrink)

Max Horkheimer: Outsider des Bürgertums und Unternehmer in Sachen Kritischer Theorie. Niemand steht so wie Max Horkheimer für das, was in den 1960er Jahren die Bezeichnung ”Frankfurter Schule“ erhielt. Der Sohn eines Textilfabrikanten übernahm 1930 die Leitung des marxistischen ”Instituts für Sozialforschung“ mit dem Ziel, der von Konkurrenz und Gewinnstreben bestimmten Welt seines Vaters die Alternative eines der Erkenntnis gewidmeten und von Solidarität geprägten Lebens gegenüberzustellen. Durch die Nazis ins Exil gezwungen, wurde das Institut zu einem Ort der (...) Zusammenarbeit von Intellektuellen verschiedener Disziplinen und prägte auch nach der Rückkehr nach Deutschland die geistige Entwicklung der Bundesrepublik. Die neue, aktuelle Darstellung von Horkheimers Leben und Werk bietet eine Einführung und eine Gesamtschau dieses zentralen Denkers des 20. Jahrhunderts. (shrink)

Over the past thirty years much has been written about the critical theory of society that was produced by a small group of left-wing Hegelians in the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, Germany and in the United States. This book seeks to make a contribution to the continued development of the critical theory of society and religion as it offers a corrective to the one-sided, positivistic development of the modern social sciences as well as to the increasing (...) social irrelevancy of the contemporary Christian church. (shrink)

The author advances the thesis that Max Horkheimer’s philosophy is a social one, the constitutive element of which is historiosophy. Contrary to the interpretative stereotype, dominating the philosophical literature, the Author strives to prove that Max Horkheimer’s philosophical point of view—that he calls the critical theory—is distinguished by its uniformity, because albeit the critical theory evaluated under the influence of the 20th-century Europe turbulent history, left its identity intact. The Author thinks that the identity of the critical theory (...) has two major indicators: 1. a visible criticism of the founding father of the Frankfurt philosophical school throughout his intellectual development towards the socio-historical circumstances that deprives the intellectual unity of autonomy and suppresses an independent thought and 2. the inconsolable thirst of changing things into better ones. Three stages of the development of Horkheimer’s philosophical conception have been depicted and briefly characterized in the article: prewar (the forming of the evidence of the critical theory), wartime (thehistoriosophical conception depicting the auto destruction of enlightenment) and postwar (the prediction of “an administered world”). (shrink)

These are questions that have lost none of their relevance.... Horkheimer remains a figure to be reckoned with.

The article consists of the following thematic threads: a) an overview of three interpretations of the term “ideology” in subject literature; b) a reconstruction of Max Horkheimer's ideology conception, presented in the first half of the 1930s in writings published in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung [Social Research Journal]; c) an attempt to answer the question to what degree this conception was paradigmatic for the early Frankfurt School (here, for comparative purposes, the author cites writings by Leo Löwenthal and Paul (...) Landsberg, which were also published in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung). (shrink)

John Abromeit, nacido en 1970 en Estados Unidos de América, obtuvo el grado de doctor en la Universidad de California en Berkeley, sus principales temas de investigación consisten en la historia intelectual europea moderna, historia alemana y la teoría social crítica. Actualmente se desempeña como profesor de Historia y Estudios Sociales, en el Buffalo State College de la State University of New York. Entre sus publicaciones más importantes se encuentran Transformations of Populism in Europe and the Americas: History and Recent (...) Tendencies (en coedición con Bridget Chesterton, York Norman y Gary Marotta, London, Bloomsbury Academic, 2016); Herbert Marcuse: Heideggerian Marxism (en coedición con Richard Wolin, USA, University of Nebraska, 2005); Herbert Marcuse: A Critical Reader (en coedición con W. Mark Cobb, Routledge, 2004), y Max Horkheimer and the Foundations of the Frankfurt School. (shrink)

O intuito deste texto pode ser retratado através de duas tarefas principais que se propõe. De um lado, realiza um balanço - limitado e parcial, na medida em que trata de um recorte bastante circunscrito - da reflexão da teoria crítica da sociedade de Max Horkheimer acerca do problema da universidade, notadamente, no período imediatamente posterior ao fim da Segunda Guerra Mundial, e do modo como se relaciona com o conceito de formação , bastante caro à tradição da universidade (...) alemã moderna. Completado esse passo, o qual estabelece laços com o papel ocupado pela socialização nessa ótica teórica, visa-se, ao final, delinear algumas reflexões preliminares a propósito da contemporaneidade que, entende-se, podem beneficiar-se do enfoque concedido ao problema, com base na situação singular em que o pensamento de Horkheimer foi formulado. This text sets itself two main tasks. First, it offers a limited evaluation of Horkheimer's reflections, especially in the period directly after the end of the Second World War, on the problem of the university and how it relates to the concept of formation , a concept fundamental to the tradition of the modern German university. Second, the role exercised by socialization in this viewpoint is examined. The objective is to elaborate reflections on contemporaneity that benefit from the focus conceded to the problem in the singular situation in which Horkheimer's thinking was formulated. (shrink)