Interesting debate this. I had always considered it unquestionable that
Adorno considered himself a Marxist, albeit in the tradition of a
philosophical Left-Hegelian Marxism. Certainly the Frankfurt School's
understanding of the Marxist tradition has to be placed in the context of
Lukac's evaluation of Marxism as critical method (i.e. dialectical), rather
than a dogmatic account of the telos of human history (see Horkheimer's
inaugural lecture as Director of the Institute). Certainly to deploy Marxist
and Communist synonymously is to miss the point; yet to claim that the
Frankfurt School were critical of Marx is not to claim that theory were not
Marxists . They were all critical of their influences and mentors, Adorno of
Hegel and Marx, Marcuse of Husserl and Freud for example. However, that in
some respects is the dialectical 'imagination' in action.
On the relationship between Foucault and the Frankfurt School, the idea that
both place 'reason on trial in the court of reason' is, I feel, something
which draws them together in (via Nietzsche) a common enterprise,
particularly in terms of Adorno and Horkheimer's' critique of the hubristic
and ultimately repressive legacy of the Enlightenment (as process rather
than periodization) and Foucault's conception of power/knowledge. The main
difference would seem that Adorno et. al. had perhaps not jettisoned quite
as much of the pre-Nietzscharian metaphysical baggage as Foucault believed
was necessary to carry out such an prosecution
Couzens Hoy and McCarthy's 1994 'Critical Theory' Oxford Blackwell, is an
interesting attempt to reevaluate the links between left-Hegelian critical
theory and contmeporray post-structuralism (including Foucault).
Philip
Philip Hancock
Department of Social Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
City Campus
Cowcaddens Road
GLASGOW
G4 0BA
Tel: [+44] 0141 331 3492
Fax: [+44] 0141 331 3439
E-Mail: P.Hancock@xxxxxxxxxx
Adorno considered himself a Marxist, albeit in the tradition of a
philosophical Left-Hegelian Marxism. Certainly the Frankfurt School's
understanding of the Marxist tradition has to be placed in the context of
Lukac's evaluation of Marxism as critical method (i.e. dialectical), rather
than a dogmatic account of the telos of human history (see Horkheimer's
inaugural lecture as Director of the Institute). Certainly to deploy Marxist
and Communist synonymously is to miss the point; yet to claim that the
Frankfurt School were critical of Marx is not to claim that theory were not
Marxists . They were all critical of their influences and mentors, Adorno of
Hegel and Marx, Marcuse of Husserl and Freud for example. However, that in
some respects is the dialectical 'imagination' in action.
On the relationship between Foucault and the Frankfurt School, the idea that
both place 'reason on trial in the court of reason' is, I feel, something
which draws them together in (via Nietzsche) a common enterprise,
particularly in terms of Adorno and Horkheimer's' critique of the hubristic
and ultimately repressive legacy of the Enlightenment (as process rather
than periodization) and Foucault's conception of power/knowledge. The main
difference would seem that Adorno et. al. had perhaps not jettisoned quite
as much of the pre-Nietzscharian metaphysical baggage as Foucault believed
was necessary to carry out such an prosecution
Couzens Hoy and McCarthy's 1994 'Critical Theory' Oxford Blackwell, is an
interesting attempt to reevaluate the links between left-Hegelian critical
theory and contmeporray post-structuralism (including Foucault).
Philip
Philip Hancock
Department of Social Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
City Campus
Cowcaddens Road
GLASGOW
G4 0BA
Tel: [+44] 0141 331 3492
Fax: [+44] 0141 331 3439
E-Mail: P.Hancock@xxxxxxxxxx