The Frankfurt theorists proposed that existingsocial theory was unable to explain the turbulentpolitical factionalism andreactionary politics, such asNazism, of 20th-century liberal capitalist societies. Also critical ofMarxism–Leninism as a philosophically inflexible system of social organization, the School's critical-theory research sought alternative paths tosocial development.
What unites the disparate members of the School is a shared commitment to the project ofhuman emancipation, theoretically pursued by an attempted synthesis of theMarxist tradition,psychoanalysis, and empirical sociological research.[1][2][3][4]
The Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
The term "Frankfurt School" describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the Institute for Social Research, an adjunct organization at theUniversity of Frankfurt am Main, founded in 1923, byCarl Grünberg, a Marxist professor of law at theUniversity of Vienna.[5] It was the first Marxist research center at a German university and was funded through the largess of the wealthy studentFelix Weil (1898–1975).[6]
Weil'sdoctoral dissertation dealt with the practical problems of implementingsocialism. In 1922, he organized the First Marxist Workweek in effort to synthesize different trends ofMarxism into a coherent, practical philosophy; the first symposium includedGyörgy Lukács,Karl Korsch,Karl August Wittfogel, andFriedrich Pollock. The success of the First Marxist Workweek prompted the formal establishment of a permanent institute for social research, and Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education for a university professor to be director of the Institute for Social Research, thereby, formally ensuring that the Frankfurt School would be a university institution.[7] Korsch and Lukács participated in the Workweek, which included the study ofMarxism and Philosophy (1923), by Karl Korsch. Their Communist Party membership precluded their active participation in the Institute for Social Research; nevertheless, Korsch participated in the School's publishing venture.
The philosophical tradition of the Frankfurt School—the multi-disciplinary integration of the social sciences—is associated with the philosopherMax Horkheimer, who became the director in 1930, and recruited intellectuals such asTheodor W. Adorno (philosopher, sociologist, musicologist),Erich Fromm (psychoanalyst), andHerbert Marcuse (philosopher).[6]
European interwar period (1918–39)
In theWeimar Republic (1918–33), the continual political turmoils of the interwar years (1918–39) much affected the development of thecritical theory philosophy of the Frankfurt School. The scholars were especially influenced by the Communists' failedGerman Revolution of 1918–19 and by the rise ofNazism (1933–45), a German form offascism. To explain suchreactionary politics, the Frankfurt scholars appliedcritical selections of Marxist philosophy to interpret, illuminate, and explain the origins and causes of reactionary socioeconomics in 20th-century Europe (a type ofpolitical economy unknown to Marx in the 19th century). The School's further intellectual development derived from the publication, in the 1930s, of theEconomic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (1932) andThe German Ideology (1932), which were interpreted as showing a continuity betweenHegelianism andMarxist philosophy.
As theanti-intellectual threat of Nazism increased to political violence, the founders decided to move the Institute for Social Research out ofNazi Germany (1933–45).[8] Soon afterAdolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933, the Institute first moved from Frankfurt to Geneva, and then to New York City, in 1935, where it joinedColumbia University. The School's journal, theZeitschrift für Sozialforschung ("Journal of Social Research"), was renamed "Studies in Philosophy and Social Science". This began the period of the School's important work in Marxist critical theory. By the 1950s, the paths of scholarship led Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock to return to West Germany, while Marcuse, Löwenthal, and Kirchheimer remained in the U.S. In 1953, the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School) was formally re-established in Frankfurt, West Germany.[9]
The works of the Frankfurt School are to be understood in the context of the intellectual and practical objectives ofcritical theory. In "Traditional and Critical Theory" (1937),Max Horkheimer defined critical theory as social critique meant to effect sociologic change and realize intellectual emancipation, by way of enlightenment that is not dogmatic in its assumptions.[10][11] Critical theory analyzes the true significance ofthe ruling understandings (thedominant ideology) generated in bourgeois society in order to show that the dominant ideology misrepresentshow human relations occur in thereal world and how capitalism justifies and legitimates the domination of people.
According to the theory ofcultural hegemony, the dominant ideology is a ruling-class narrative that provides an explanatory justification of the current power-structure of society. Nonetheless, the story told throughthe ruling understandings conceals as much as it reveals about society. The task of the Frankfurt School was sociological analysis and interpretation of the areas of social-relation that Marx did not discuss in the 19th century—especially thebase and superstructure aspects of a capitalist society.[12]
Horkheimer opposed critical theory totraditional theory, wherein the wordtheory is applied in the positivistic sense ofscientism, in the sense of a purely observational mode, which finds and establishesscientific law (generalizations) about the real world. Social sciences differ from natural sciences because their scientific generalizations cannot be readily derived from experience. The researcher's understanding of a social experience is always filtered through biases in the researcher's mind. What the researcher does not understand is that he or she operates within an historical and ideological context. The results for the theory being tested would conform to the ideas of the researcher rather than the facts of the experience proper; in "Traditional and Critical Theory" (1937), Horkheimer said:
The facts, which our senses present to us, are socially performed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived, and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception.[13]
For Horkheimer, the methods of investigation applicable to the social sciences cannot imitate thescientific method applicable to thenatural sciences. In that vein, the theoretical approaches ofpositivism andpragmatism, ofneo-Kantianism andphenomenology failed to surpass the ideological constraints that restricted their application to social science, because of the inherent logico–mathematic prejudice that separates theory from actual life, i.e. such methods of investigation seek a logic that is always true, and independent of and without consideration for continuing human activity in the field under study. He felt that the appropriate response to such a dilemma was the development of a critical theory of Marxism.[14]
Horkheimer believed the problem wasepistemological saying "we should reconsider not merely the scientist, but the knowing individual, in general."[15] Unlikeorthodox Marxism, which applies a template to critique and to action, critical theory is self-critical, with no claim to theuniversality of absolute truth. As such, it does not grant primacy to matter (materialism) or consciousness (idealism), because each epistemology distorts the reality under study to the benefit of a small group. In practice, critical theory is outside the philosophical strictures of traditional theory; however, as a way of thinking and of recovering humanity's self-knowledge, critical theory draws investigational resources and methods from Marxism.[11]
Dialectical method
In contrast to modes of reasoning that view things in abstraction, each by itself and as though endowed with fixed properties, Hegel's "dialectical" innovation was to consider reality according to its movement and change in time, according to interrelations and interactions of its various components or "moments". The Frankfurt School attempted to reformulate Hegel's idealistic dialectics into a more concrete method of investigation.[16]
According to Hegel, human history can be reconstructed to show how what is rational in reality is the result of the overcoming of past contradictions. It is an intelligible process of human activity, theWeltgeist, which is theidea of progress towards a specific human condition; namely, the actualization of human freedom.[17] However, theproblem of future contingents (considerations about the future) did not interest Hegel, for whom philosophy cannot beprescriptive and normative, because philosophy comprehends only in hindsight.[18][19] The study of history is limited to descriptions of past and present human realities.[17] For Hegel and his successors (theright Hegelians), philosophy can only describe what is rational in the reality of the present, which in Hegel's time wasChristianity and thePrussian state.
Karl Marx and theyoung Hegelians strongly criticized that perspective. According to them, Hegel had over-reached in his abstract conception of "absolute reason" and had failed to notice the "real"—that is,undesirable andirrational—life conditions of theproletariat. Marx claims to invert Hegel's idealist dialectics in his own theory ofdialectical materialism, arguing that "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but that their social being that determines their consciousness."[20] Marx's theory follows amaterialist conception of history andgeographic space, where the development of the productive forces is the primary motive force for historical change.[21] The social and materialcontradictions inherent to capitalism must lead to its negation, which according to this theory, will be the replacement of capitalism withcommunism, a new, rational form of society.[22]
Marx used dialectical analysis to uncover the contradictions in the predominant ideas of society, and in the social relations to which they are linked—exposing the underlying struggle between opposing forces. Only by becoming aware of the dialectic (i.e., attainingclass consciousness) of such opposing forces in a struggle for power can men and women intellectually liberate themselves, and change the existing social order through social progress.[23] The Frankfurt School understood that a dialectical method could only be adoptedif it could be applied to itself; if they adopted a self-correcting method—a dialectical method that would enable the correction of previous, false interpretations of the dialectical investigation. Accordingly, critical theory rejected thehistoricism and materialism of orthodox Marxism.[24]
Critique of capitalist ideology
Dialectic of Enlightenment
Adorno andHorkheimer'sDialectic of Enlightenment, written during the Institute's exile in America, was published in 1944. While retaining many Marxist insights, this work shifted emphasis from a critique of the material forces of production to a critique of the social and ideological forces bought about by earlycapitalism. TheDialectic of Enlightenment uses theOdyssey as a paradigm for their analysis ofbourgeois consciousness. In this work, Adorno and Horkheimer introduce many themes that central to subsequentsocial thought. Their exposition of thedomination of nature as a central characteristic ofinstrumental rationality and its application within the capitalism of thepost-Enlightenment era was made long beforeecology andenvironmentalism became popular concerns.
They claim thatInstrumental rationality is the new means of cultural reproduction within the mechanical age. It is a fusion of domination and technological rationality that brings all of external and internal nature under the power of the human subject. In the process the subject gets swallowed up and no social force analogous to theproletariat can be identified that could enable the subject to emancipate itself.
It is their contention that, at a time when it appears that reality itself has become the basis for ideology, the greatest contribution that critical theory can make is to explore the dialectical contradictions of individual subjective experience, on the one hand, and to preserve the truth of theory, on the other. Even dialectical progress is put into doubt: "Its truth or untruth is not inherent in the method itself, but in its intention in the historical process." This intention must be oriented toward integral freedom and happiness: "The only philosophy which can be responsibly practiced in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption."[25]
From a sociological point of view, Adorno and Horkheimer's works demonstrate an ambivalence concerning the ultimate source of social domination, an ambivalence that gave rise to the "pessimism" of critical theory about the possibility of human emancipation and freedom.[26] This ambivalence was rooted in the historical circumstances in which the work was originally produced, in particular, the rise ofNazism,state capitalism, andmass culture as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Marxist sociology.[27] For Adorno and Horkheimer,state intervention in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the "relations of production" and "materialproductive forces of society"—a tension that, according to traditionalMarxist theory, constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The previously "free" market (as an "unconscious" mechanism for the distribution of goods) and "irrevocable"private property of Marx's epoch gradually had been replaced by the more central role of management hierarchies at the firm level and macroeconomic interventions at the state level in contemporary Western societies.[28] The dialectic through which Marx predicted the emancipation of modern society was suppressed, effectively subjugated to a positivist rationality of domination.
According to the now canonical view of its history, Frankfurt School critical theory began in the 1930s as a fairly confident interdisciplinary and materialist research program, the general aim of which was to connect normative social criticism to the emancipatory potential latent in concrete historical processes. Only a decade or so later, however, having revisited the premises of their philosophy of history, Horkheimer and Adorno'sDialectic of Enlightenment steered the whole enterprise, provocatively and self-consciously, into a skeptical cul-de-sac.[29]
Kompridis argues that this "sceptical cul-de-sac" was arrived at with "a lot of help from the once unspeakable and unprecedented barbarity of European fascism" and could not be gotten out of without "some well-marked [exit or]Ausgang, showing the way out of the ever-recurring nightmare in which Enlightenment hopes and Holocaust horrors are fatally entangled." However,Ausgang, according to Kompridis, this would not come until later—purportedly in the form of Jürgen Habermas's work on the intersubjective bases ofcommunicative rationality.[29]
In psychoanalytic terms, consumption culture and mass media displaced the role of a father figure in the paternalistic family. Rather than serving to liberate society from patriarchal authority however, this merely replaced it with the authority of the "totally administered" society.Christopher Lasch criticized subsequent liberatory movements of the 1960s for failing to reckon with this dynamic, which in his view led to a "culture ofnarcissism".[30] Lasch believed the "later Frankfurt School" tended to ground political criticisms too much on psychiatric diagnoses like theauthoritarian personality: "This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds."[31]
Art and music criticism
Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" is a canonical text in art history and film studies.[32] Benjamin is optimistic about the potential of commodified works of art to introduce radical political views to the proletariat.[33] In contrast, Adorno and Horkheimer saw the rise of theculture industry as promoting homogeneity of thought and entrenching existing authorities.[33] For instance, Adorno (a trained classical pianist) polemicized againstpopular music because it had become part of the culture industry ofadvanced capitalist society and thefalse consciousness that contributes to social domination. He argued that radical art and music may preserve the truth by capturing the reality of human suffering. Hence, "What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man.... The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music".[34]
This view ofmodern art as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty because they have become ideological is characteristic of Adorno and of the Frankfurt School generally. In particular, Adorno criticizedjazz andpopular music, viewing them as part of the culture industry that contributes to the present sustainability of capitalism by rendering it "aesthetically pleasing" and "agreeable".Martin Jay has called the attack on jazz the least successful aspect of Adorno's work in America.[35]
Praxis
Members of the Frankfurt School were academics and generally avoided (direct) political action orpraxis.[36] Max Horkheimer opposed any revolutionary rhetoric in the institute's publications, since it could jeopardize funding from the West German government.[37] Theodor Adorno showed some sympathy to student movements, particularly after thekilling of Benno Ohnesorg, but he did not believe street violence had the potential to effect change.[38][39]Angela Davis, a student of Marcuse, recounted advice given to her by Adorno that critical theorists working in the radical movements of the 1960s were, "akin to a media studies scholar deciding to become a radio technician".[37][40]
InThe Theory of the Novel (1971),György Lukács criticized the "leading German intelligentsia", including some members of the Frankfurt School (Adorno is named explicitly), as inhabiting theGrand Hotel Abyss, a metaphorical place from which the theorists comfortably analyze theabyss, the world beyond. Lukács described this contradictory situation as follows: They inhabit "a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss, between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered."[41][38]
The singular exception to this was Herbert Marcuse, who engaged with thenew left in the 1960s and 1970s.[36][38] Marcuse'sOne-Dimensional Man described the containment of the working class by material consumption and mass media that diverted any possibility of a proletarian revolution. Although Marcuse considered this pessimistic state of affairs to befait accompli when the book was published in 1964, he was surprised and pleased when almost immediately thecivil rights movement intensified and seriousopposition to the Vietnam war began. Student activists such as theStudents for a Democratic Society in turn took an interest in Marcuse and his works. Formerly an obscure academicémigré, he rapidly became a controversial public intellectual known as the "Guru of the New Left". Marcuse did not aim for narrow, incremental reforms but for the "Great Refusal" of all existing culture and "total revolution" against capitalism. In the democratic protests movements, Marcuse saw agents of change that could supplement the quiescent working class and unite withthird-world communist revolutionaries. Marcuse took an active role in the New Left, organizing events with students in the United States and theWest German student movement.[36]
Marcuse's relationship with Horkheimer and Adorno was strained by their divergence of opinion about the student movements.[36][39] TheSocialist German Students' Union was harshly critical of Adorno for his lack of political engagement and would disrupt his lectures.[39] When a student's room was trashed for refusing to take part in protests, Adorno wrote, "praxis serves as an ideological pretext for exercising moral constraint." Adorno further said it was a manifestation of theauthoritarian personality.[38] Adorno's studentHans-Jürgen Krahl was also critical of Adorno's inaction.[39] When in January 1969, Krahl led a group of students to occupy a room, Adorno called the police to remove them, further angering the students.[39] Marcuse criticized Adorno's decision to call the police, writing "I reject the unmediated translation of theory into praxis just as emphatically as you do. But I do believe that there are situations, moments, in which theory is pushed on further by praxis—situations and moments in which theory that is kept separate from praxis becomes untrue to itself".[39]
In the 1970s, perceiving the limitations of the new left, Marcuse de-emphasized the third world and revolutionary violence in favor of a focus on social issues in the United States.[36] He sought to recruit other movements on the political periphery, such asenvironmentalism andfeminism, to apopular front for socialism. During this period, he spoke enthusiastically aboutwomen's liberation, seeing in it echoes of his earlier work inEros and Civilization. Seeing that the revolutionary moment of the 1960s was over, Marcuse advised students to avoid even a suggestion of violence. Instead, he advocated the "long march through the institutions" and recommended educational institutions as a refuge for radicals in the U.S.[36]
Criticism
Psychoanalytic categorization
The historianChristopher Lasch criticized the Frankfurt School for their initial tendency of "automatically" rejecting opposing political criticisms, based upon "psychiatric" grounds:
The Authoritarian Personality [1950] had a tremendous influence on [Richard]Hofstadter, and other liberal intellectuals, because it showed them how to conduct political criticism in psychiatric categories, [and] to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds.[42]
Economics and communications media
During the 1980s, anti-authoritarian socialists in the United Kingdom and New Zealand criticized the rigid and deterministic view of popular culture deployed within the Frankfurt School theories of capitalist culture, which seemed to preclude any prefigurative role for social critique within such work. They argued thatEC Comics often did contain such cultural critiques.[43][44] Recent criticism of the Frankfurt School by thelibertarianCato Institute focused on the claim that culture has grown more sophisticated and diverse as a consequence of free markets and the availability of niche cultural text for niche audiences.[45]
^Bohman, James (7 January 2024)."Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)".Critical Theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
^Geuss, Raymond.The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school. Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 58.
^abCarr, Adrian (2000). "Critical theory and the Management of Change in Organizations",Journal of Organizational Change Management, pp. 13, 3, 208–220.
^Martin Jay.The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950. London: Heinemann, 1973, p. 21.
^Horkheimer, Max (1976). "Traditional and critical theory". In: Connerton, P (Eds),Critical Sociology: Selected Readings, Penguin, Harmondsworth, p. 213
^Rasmussen, D. "Critical Theory and Philosophy",The Handbook of Critical Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996. p .18.
^"When philosophy paints its grey on grey, then has a shape of life grown old. . . . TheOwl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" —Hegel, G. W. F. (1821).Elements of the Philosophy of Right (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts), p.13
^"Hegel's philosophy, and in particular his political philosophy, purports to be the rational formulation of a definite historical period, and Hegel refuses to look further ahead into the future." —Peĺczynski, Z. A. (1971).Hegel's political philosophy—Problems and Perspectives: A Collection of New Essays, CUP Archive.Google Print, p. 200Archived 4 May 2016 at theWayback Machine
^Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies. London: Verso. (pp. 76–93)
^Jonathan Wolff, PhD (ed.)."Karl Marx".Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford.Archived from the original on 8 February 2012. Retrieved17 September 2009.
^Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. (2002).Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 242.
^"Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimer's circle to think through political disappointments at the absence of revolution in the West, the development of Stalinism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism in Germany. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prognoses, but without breaking Marxist intentions" —Habermas, Jürgen. (1987).The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, p. 116.See also: Dubiel, Helmut. (1985).Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory. Trans. Benjamin Gregg. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.
^"[G]one are the objective laws of the market which ruled in the actions of the entrepreneurs and tended toward catastrophe. Instead the conscious decision of the managing directors executes as results (which are more obligatory than the blindest price-mechanisms) the old law of value and hence the destiny of capitalism." —Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. (2002).Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 38.
^Blake, Casey and Christopher Phelps. (1994). "History as Social Criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch",Journal of American History 80, No. 4 (March), pp. 1310–1332.
^Adorno, Theodor W. (2003)The Philosophy of Modern Music. Translated into English by Anne G. Mitchell and Wesley V. Blomster. Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 41–42.
^Jay, Martin (Winter 1984). "Adorno in America".New German Critique. Winter 1984 (31). Duke University Press:157–182.doi:10.2307/487894.JSTOR487894.
^abcdefKellner, Douglas (2005). "Introduction".Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s. Routledge.ISBN9780815371670.
^abJeffries, Stuart (26 September 2017). "Up against the wall, motherfuckers".Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. Verso.ISBN9-781-78478-569-7.
^abcdJeffries, Stuart (26 September 2017). "Introduction".Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. Verso.ISBN9-781-78478-569-7.
^abcdefJeffries, Stuart (26 September 2017). "Philosophising with Molotov cocktails".Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. Verso.ISBN9-781-78478-569-7.
^Davis, Angela Y. (2005). "Foreword". In Kellner, Douglas (ed.).Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s. Routledge.ISBN9780815371670.
^Lukács, Georg. (1971).The Theory of the Novel. MIT Press, p. 22.
^Blake, Casey and Christopher Phelps (March 1994). "History as Social Criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch",The Journal of American History 80, No. 4, pp. 1310–1332.doi:10.2307/2080602.JSTOR2080602.
^Martin Barker:A Haunt of Fears: The Strange History of the British Horror Comics Campaign: London: Pluto Press: 1984
^Roy Shuker, Roger Openshaw and Janet Soler:Youth, Media and Moral Panic: From Hooligans to Video Nasties: Palmerston North: Massey University Department of Education: 1990
Friedman, George.The Political Philosophy of the Frankfurt School. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1981.
Held, David.Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
Jay, Martin.The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 1996.
Jeffries, Stuart (2016).Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. London; Brooklyn, New York: Verso.ISBN978-1-78478-568-0.
Kompridis, Nikolas.Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and Future. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006.
Mittelmeier, Martin (2024).Naples 1925: Adorno, Benjamin, and the Summer That Made Critical Theory. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.ISBN978-0-30025-930-8.
Postone, Moishe.Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Scheuerman, William E.Frankfurt School Perspectives on Globalization, Democracy, and the Law, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008.
Schwartz, Frederic J.Blind Spots: Critical Theory and the History of Art in Twentieth-Century Germany. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2005.
Wheatland, Thomas.The Frankfurt School in Exile. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.
Wiggershaus, Rolf.The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995.
Gerhardt, Christina."Frankfurt School (Jewish émigrés)"(subscription required).The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. Ness, Immanuel (ed.). Blackwell Publishing, 2009. Blackwell Reference Online.
.jpg)
