The critical thinking of the philosophers of the Frankfurt School (EF) has in common the direction of their criticisms of the political and economic order of the “administered world”. This order prevails along the lines of a technological apparatus that, in a way, affects society with its standardized, homogeneous conditioning and, above all, without the perspective of undertaking the life of each individual autonomously.
With this, each thinker of this line contributed to the promotion of Critical Theory (TC). Of the remarkable works restricted to each author, we have: Max Horkheimer concentrated his thoughts on “Eclipse of Reason”, where a collection of texts perpetuates his theoretical baggage, although the philosopher has always found himself producing articles and other texts that he identified as a hardworking intellectual engaged in an academic environment. Teodor Wiesengründ Adorno, who, although he joined TC after his exile, committed himself to exposing his critical thinking in the same perspective as the others, but some divergences or discrepancies should be noted in his reflection. In his work «Negative Dialectics” (DN), Adorno faces an entire historical-philosophical tradition, focusing on the deconstruction of the concept of “dialectics”.
It is, therefore, his proposal of ‘living philosophy’, the negation of dialectics, which corroborates the non-systematization, that is, contrary to Hegelian dialectics, negative dialectics does not have its moment of synthesis. In this sense, Adorno is radically opposed to the position of reconciliation, as a conceptually comprehensive term, but which determines the precepts of the Hegelian dialectic, since such a position preserves a bourgeois vision, whose target is given, for him, both in philosophy and in art. . Although DN has a greater accentuation of maximum criticism, Adorno has numerous articles and texts found in collections. He was also greatly supported by working together with Horkheimer on what resulted in “Dialectic of Enlightenment”.
Herbert Marcuse, like Adorno, began to contribute to TC after his exile in the United States. His critical foundation preserves the basis of dialectical denial, but distances himself from Adorno in what he deems, through philosophy, an ideal form of sociability, since for Adorno, barbarism is already in place, since there is no way to escape the system of order established. In this sense, Marcuse is milder, trusting the technicality of humanitarian progress, emphasizing the need to raise awareness among the working masses and make them oblivious to the current order. For him, emancipation is already given, however it does not occur due to the imprisonment of the human condition in the “realm of necessity”. This realm, according to Marcuse, encompasses the social situation of technical progress equivalent to supplying man’s vital needs. Therefore, it would not be up to the apparatus of the administered world to condition society to take a step forward and enter the “kingdom of freedom”. This does not happen, due to the fact that it does not match the logic of the apparatus of industrial society. Marcuse wrote, in addition to articles, his reference work “Reason and Revolution”, in which he condenses much of his critical thinking. He also editedEros and Civilization”a philosophical interpretation of Freud, whose conceptual content illustrates the notion of progress, pointing out its rectifying or emancipatory character from social domination and, on the other hand, its perpetuation.
Don’t stop now… There’s more after the publicity 😉
Walter Benjamim, also exiled in the United States, faithfully contributed to the propagation of CT. Benjamim wrote numerous articles that reflect the humanitarian temporal condition, starting from his reflection on art and society. With regard to his art criticism, he analyzes the drama of the 17th century, seeking in it a conception of History. Faced with social criticism, he sought in art the historical situationality to utter it, since his emphasis on the conception of art allows him to elaborate such an analogy. His essays are always tuned to this bias, that is, through the art of being able to speak about the concept of History.
These are the main authors of EF and their contributions to CT.
By João Francisco P. Cabral
Employee
Graduated in Philosophy from the Federal University of Uberlândia – UFU
Master’s student in Philosophy at the State University of Campinas – UNICAMP