Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 11:52:08 +0800
From: rgeeland-AT-cc.curtin.edu.au (David Geelan)
Subject: HAB: Habermas and the Frankfurt School


"It was not until the late sixties that the Frankfurt thinkers began to be
considered as a school in the eyes of the politicized students and the
general public. The fact is that a coherence of views strong enough to form
a school only existed in emigration in New York, when...Pollock, Marcuse,
Lowenthal, Kirchheimer and Neumann, were working together...with Horkheimer
as the moving spirit." (Habermas; Autonomy and Solidarity, 1986: 49)

"Adorno took the aphoristic mode of philosophising to extremes. He made the
idea of thinking in fragments into a programme, keeping his distance, an
excessive distance in my view, from the general scientific enterprise. This
led to three principal weaknesses. In the first place, Critical Theory
never really took the theoretical contributions of the social sciences and
analytic philosophy seriously. It never engaged with them systematically,
as it should have done, given its own intentions. Hence, secondly, it took
refuge in an abstract critique of instrumental reason and made only a
limited contribution to the empirical analysis of the over-complex reality
of our society. And finally, it failed to give an unambiguous account of
its own normative foundations, its own status. Adorno denied that it was
possible to provide a systematic grounding of the concept of reason to
which he always implicitly appealed. This aporia, incidentally, is one
reason why I have attempted to elaborate a theory of communicative action,
of action orientated towards validity claims." (Habermas; Autonomy and
Solidarity, 1986: 49)

These two quotes, taken from an interview of Habermas by Gad Freudenthal in
1977, illustrate the principal diffrences between Habermas and the Critical
Theory of the Frankfurt School, as seen by Habermas. In other works he has
also critiqued their psychoanalytic concept of an ego undistorted by social
pressures, and their Marxian materialism.

The term 'Critical Theory', as used by the Frankfurt School, is much more
strongly tied in with the psychoanalytic critique of society, and also has
stronger links to Marxist theory. Habermas' approach, on the other hand,
insists on the necessity for a dialectical relationship between philosophy
and social theory and practice, in which communicative action is valued,
and the ideal speech situation is an ideal.

At this point I have to admit that my own knowledge of the Frankfurt
School's work is limited, essentially because the work of Habermas,
particularly the theory of human interests and communicative action, are
the focus of my own interest. I am therefore interested to see comments by
members of both the Habermas and Frankfurt forums on the distinctions
raised above, particularly in light of the proposed merger of these lists.
Are they sufficiently compatible, and will the interests of the various
parties be best served through a less focussed discussion with higher
volume, or two more tightly focussed groups which have the ability to link
across in those areas where their interests coincide (such as this
discussion of Habermas' relationship with the Frankfurt School.) Responses
to this question/discussion in both lists would be welcome.

Regards,

David Geelan