You are on page 1of 9

Review: Marxism and the Critical School

Reviewed Work(s): The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the
Institute of Social Research by Martin Jay
Review by: Russell Jacoby
Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer, 1974), pp. 231-238
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656887
Accessed: 03-08-2017 21:33 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and
Society

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Theory and Society, 1(1974) 231-238
? Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

Review article

Marxism and the Critical School cribed to these which is strictly parasitical;
the confidence gained by the scholarly pre-
A Review of The Dialectical Imagination: sentation of the thought of the Frankfurt
A History of the Frankfurt School and TheSchool will be conferred on the comments
Institute of Social Research, by Martin and analyses. Yet if anything marks this
Jay, Little Brown (Boston and Toronto) book and others in its genre, it is the dis-
1973. juncture between its presentation of the
thought of others - its scholarship - and
RUSSELL JACOBY its own contribution to thinking. Precisely
because it deals with an intellectual world
If reality did not exist, Martin Jay's The which while it wants to know something
Dialectical Imagination: A History OF the about critical theory and Marxism, also
Frankfurt School and the Institute of So- wishes to write them off, this disjuncture
cial Research, 1923-1950 could be re- will be minimized. The result will be that
viewed briefly: it is a serious, accurate, and the commentary will tend to displace,
academic presentation of the thought of neutralize, and obscure the original and
the Frankfurt School from its origins till living thought. The history of commen-
1950. Since its synthesis is coherent and taries itself has yet to be written, but it
cogent, and the texts on which it is based should be recalled that often enough the
are either not available in English, or are commentaries oppress the works they are
now only becoming so, it will hopefully presenting. Only relatively recently has
contribute to the resurgence of a critical Marx emerged from the writings on Marx;
Marxism - though this is hardly its intent. and Freud, of late, has been going in the
A report along these lines would suffice, reverse direction, lost to view as some
not because this is a bad book, but a good antique from the 19th century.
one, even though it argues very little, pre-
sents nothing very original, raises no im- An examination of a book cannot be in-
portant questions. Even Jay's remarks at different to its fate; inasmuch as the in-
the beginning that the "historical mo- cidental observations, decisions, and con-
ment" of the Frankfurt School has "irrevo- clusions of Jay's book will be read as main
cably passed" (p.vii) could be chalked uptheses and arguments, they must be
as the I.O.U. the academy exacts from a scrutinized as such. Hence, what might
practicing historian as a guarantee the sub- have at first seemed a legitimate decision,
ject at hand is dead and gone. or at least an inconsequential one, to treat
the Frankfurt School only through 1950
Yet reality intrudes and obtrudes. In short, and its return to Germany, assumes a
this book must not be abstracted from an
crucial importance. For if the Frankfurt
Anglo-American audience that knows pre- School has straddled an American and
cious little about 'critical theory,' the German world, its critical reception in the
Frankfurt School, or Marxism. Such an 1960s through to the present has been
audience not only reads but misreads. Jay's essentially German, and to a lesser extent
own comments, arguments and observa-
Italian and French. Jay, of course, is not
tions, which both qualitatively and quanti- writing for this audience, but an Anglo-
tatively form an extremely minor aspect of American one that knows little of the
the book, will not be considered as such. Frankfurt School, and nothing about the
Rather an authoritativeness will be as- German debates over it. It is difficult in

Cambridge, Mass.

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
232

any case simultaneously to introduce and Marxist roots in its various American
material - to, so to speak, translate it - empirical projects of the 1940s, most nota-
and contribute to debates within and over bly the "Studies in Prejudice" series of
it; but Jay does less than try. The cutt off
which THE Authoritarian Personality was
date of 1950 has the lethal effect of an a part. Jay at first seems to accept this
autopsy on the living: it kills. For those judgment. "On the surface it appears as if
who have pursued any of the debates either the Studies [ IN Prejudice] were a radical
about the Frankfurt School or spurred bydeparture from some of the basic tenets of
it, such as the relationship between sponta- the Critical Theory. In certain ways this
neity and anarchism, science and produc- was true." (p.226) The questions involved
tive forces, nature of the working class, and here are substantial; in brief, it is difficult
so on, little will be found that contributes to maintain that empirical work was ut-
to these issues. And more importantly, terly new to the Frankfurt School, in
those just encountering the Frankfurt theory or fact Horkheimer as early as his
School will be left with the distinct impres-1931 opening address to the Institute
sion that it exited from history, rather thancalled for the incorporation of empirical
re-entered it in the 1960s. Jay makes good
research and survey methods. "For the
his I.O.U. design of these questionnaires, American
social research has performed important
The general drift of Jay's comments seeks,preparations, which we want to adopt and
at first, to belittle the relationship of further develop for our goals."1 And the
Marxism to the 'critical theory' of the early volumes of the periodical of the
Frankfurt School, and secondly, and School, Zeitschrift fur Sozialforschung,
emphatically, to declare them utterly contain a good number of empirical
separate; he wants to make the Frankfurtstudies. A contribution to the 1934 vol-
School safe for democrats and historians ume on "Differentiation of Delinquent
by attesting it free of Marxism. He doesand Non-Delinquent Boys" is footnoted
this by confirming the unwritten law thatby Horkheimer: "With this contribution
radicals become conservatives, and we begin a series of short reports on impor-
Marxists, liberals. So fundamentally does tant inquiries, their methods and con-
Jay believe this 'law' - at least as it applies clusions."2
to the Frankfurt School - that he does not
bother to argue it; more the reverse: he Secondly, the combination of tactical,
only qualifies it, and in so doing confirms financial, and political reasons that would
it. That is: the proposition- accusation or cause a group of German emigres in the
hope - that implicitly (and in the final USA during the 1940s to mute a Marxist
chapter, explicitly) informs this book is critique is evident. While not necessarily
that the Frankfurt School over the years evidence of capitulation, it does raise a
has totally and thoroughly purged itself of problem of interpretation. In the forward
its Marxist origins. Jay on occasion seeks to to the first issue of the Zeitschrift pub-
qualify the extreme formulation of this lished in English (July, 1940), Horkheimer
proposition, and in so doing appears as if explained the reason for switching to
he were defending the Marxism of theEnglish. "Philosophy, art and science have
Frankfurt School - which he is not. lost their home in most of Europe
Rather, he wants to certify its distance
. . . America, especially the United States,
from Marxism by detecting only some is the only continent in which the continu-
remnants. ation of scientific life is possible. Within
the framework of this country's demo-
cratic institutions, culture still enjoys the
To illustrate: it has often been charged that
the Frankfurt School betrayed its critical freedom without which, we believe, it is

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
233

unable to exist."3 Note that in just the furt School's Marxism. He discovers that in
previous issue Horkheimer had written, in the 1940s a "critical shift" takes place in
German: "Today to invoke against Fas- the Frankfurt School which "makes a
cism the liberal thought of the 19th cen- fitting conclusion to our study..."
tury is to appeal to the court through (p.255) The conclusion that fits, of course,
which it conquered."4 Such a change isisnot that the Frankfurt School takes leave of
simply a contradiction nor a retreat, but a Marxism; it "travelled the last leg of its
deliberate political choice. It should also long march away from orthodox Marx-
be mentioned that Alfred Sohn-Rethel, a (p. 256) Again it must be emphasized
ism."
friend of the Frankfurt School, has asser-that nothing has been said about the first
ted that the term "critical theory" itself leg of this long march. That Jay occasional-
was a code word for Marxism.5 ly identifies Marxism with Stalinism lends
some credence to his argument that the
None of this is news to Jay; and he in factFrankfurt School was on a long march.
argues against the 'surface' reading which "Disillusioned with the Soviet Union, no
maintains that the Frankfurt School longer even marginally sanguine about the
radically departed from Marxism in its working classes of the West, appalled by
American and empirical work. But his the integrative power of mass culture, the
language concedes even as it qualifies. "In Frankfurt School travelled the last leg of
general, however, the situation was con- its long march away form orthodox Marx-
siderably more complicated than a cursoryism." If Marxism necessitates enthusiasm
reading of the Studies in Prejudice sug- about the Western working class, satisfac-
gested. First of all, the Institute's Marxisttion with mass culture, and illusions about
origins... were not obliterated entirely. the Soviet Union, then Jay is right, and
Evidence of their persistence appeared in aboth Marcuse and Mao are non-Marxists.
number of ways..." (p.228) That the Jay, however, is wrong.
Marxism was not "obliterated entirely"
may be solace for the archivist, but not The
for two specifics that Jay marshals as
the Marxist. What is important here isevidence
that of the last leg of the trip are based
the tone swallows the argument; the tone on misreadings and misinterpretations.
and language suggest the Frankfurt School "The clearest expression of this change was
did junk Marxism - or retained only ves- the Institute's replacement of class con-
tiges - while in fact Jay argues the reverse. flict, that foundation stone of any truly
This wo.uld hardly matter except for the Marxist theory, with a new motor of
place of this chapter in the book; it pre- history (...)the larger conflict between
cedes the final chapter which then argues man and nature..." (p.256) This is
explicitly that the Frankfurt School blots wrong, all wrong. First, as Jay himself in-
out Marxism. If this concluding argument dicates, this is not a new theme in the
convinces, it does so by grounding itself in Frankfurt School work; and secondly, and
the case made in the previous chapters. But more importantly, the theme of the
this was well-grounded because the sole domination of nature does not dislodge
place where the relationship of the Frank-class conflict. One does not supplant but
furt School to Marxism is previously dis- supplements the other; it is not a question
cussed is the chapter on the empirical of class conflict or man/nature conflict but
work, and this, again, is an argument of both.6 "All production is the appropria-
tone not substance. tion of nature on the part of an individual
within and through a specific form of
It is only in the final chapter that Jay society."7 The Frankfurt School has
begins to make the case at which he has so pursued this dialectic: history as a con-
long hinted: the extinction of the Frank- tinuum of dominated nature and history as

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
234

a particular and capatalist form of domina- and Adorno still used language reminiscent
tion. The 'timeless' struggle of humanity of Marxism - such terms as the 'exchange
against nature is itself historical; it both principle' played a key role in their analysis
predates capitalism and possesses a distinct - they no longer sought answers to cultur-
form within it. Neither excludes the other. al questions in the material substructure of
History that has congealed into an uncon- society." (p.258-9) Nothing is adduced to
scious 'second-nature' - one of the most show this.
important concepts of critical theory, and
one Jay does not discuss- is not natural, The cutting edge of critical theory is
but nature and history under conditions of founded in its reconstruction of the rela-
unfreedom.8 Some of the most important tionship between nature and history,
writings of the Frankfurt School are struc- thought and ideology. It has resisted the
tured around this dialectic, including its neutralization of the concept of ideology,
interpretation of Freud. Class conflict is be it in Mannheim, the sociology of know-
not stilled; another dimension of it is un- ledge, or Official Marxism. That this pro-
covered. "That one cannot speak of a ject, which has spanned all their work,1?
proletariat class consciousness in the has led them to pursue the archaic and
leading capatalist countries," wrote primal mystification that persists in all en-
Adorno in 1968, "does not in itself- in lightened thought does not in itself violate
contradiction to communis opinio - Marxism; nor does the admixture of pre-
refute the existence of classes; class is capitalist and capitalist forms of ideology
determined by the relationship to the and domination make domination any less
means of production, and not through the historical - or remove it from the material
consciousness of its members."9 substructure. For Jay to hold up against
critical theory the very reified concepts
Jay's categories are too lazy to follow dia- that it from the beginning repudiated-
lectical thought; against the unfolding of ideology as the relationship of substruc-
Marxist concepts which is the strength of ture to superstructure - as proof that they
critical theory, Jay appeals to their worn betrayed their origins, is proof of their
and conventional form as evidence of the loyalty to a critical Marxism - and of Jay's
weakness of critical theory. To Jay one distance. Vulgar liberalism bails out vulgar
category cannot be mediated by another, Marxism.
* but can only replace it; hence, according to
his interpretation, nature dislodges his- The second "subtle, but crucial trans-
tory, and to this he adds that the notion offormation of the Institute's theoretical
enlightenment replaces ideology. His mode intentions in the forties" (p.279) that Jay
of argument is the same: a fictional earlier finds is as flimsy as the first. Here again an
state of the Frankfurt School is inferred earlier stage of critical theory is imputed so
and then fictionally transcended. "Before as to contrast it with a later more conserva-
the war," we are told, the Frankfurt tive stage. According to Jay, with the shift
School used the traditional Marxist notion to the man/nature conflict "... that im-
of ideology; "this type of connection be- perative for praxis so much a part of what
tween substructure and superstructure was some might call the Institute's heroic
a frequent feature of the Frankfurt period, was no longer an integral part of its
School's work." (p.258) With the Dialectic thought." (p.279) Jay custom tailors the
of Enlightenment, and later works, the material to fit his fitting conclusion; the
Frankfurt School left "the vestiges of an notion that the writings of the "heroic
orthodox Marxist theory of ideology period" of the Frankfurt School breathed
behind." (p.259) Jay appends a damaging of revolutionary praxis and fervor is fan-
non-sequitur: "Thus although Horkheimer tasy. Which? Horkheimer's Anfange der

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
235

burgerlichen Geschich tsphilosophie members of the Institute had been more


(1930)? or his 'Antrittsvorlesung' on the intimately involved in practical politics."
tasks of the Frankfurt School (1931)? or (p.36) The example of Gramsci that Jay
Adorno's Kierkegaard ( 1933)? or uses to indicate this enriching process is
Marcuse's Hegels Ontologie (1932)? In lame, as Gramsci's work, and the possibili-
fact, the most political and revolutionary ties within the Communist Party in
writings of the Frankfurt School, ex- general, close before the Frankfurt School
cluding the later Marcuse, are some of begins. Given the realities of exile politics,
14 one could more argue the reverse:
Horkheimer's essays from around 1940:
"Autoritarer Staat,"11 "Die Juden und
critical theory would have been impover-
Europa" and "Vernunft und Selbsterhal- ished by practical politics. How enriching
tung." The point is not that the Frankfurt would it be if Adorno and Horkheimer left
School, early and late, was resigned, but us not with Dialectic of Enlightenment,
that neither earlier or later did their but with "The United Front and Orga-
writings possess an immediate relation to nizing the German Exile Community"?
praxis; if they had a practical impact it was
by way of theory itself. As Adorno wrote Jay's cutt off date of 1950 is again unfor-
not long before he died, "... where I have tunate, as it permits him to allude to,
intervened in the narrow sense, immediate- without discussing, the later friction be-
ly, with noticeable practical effect, it has tween the Frankfurt School and its stu-
occurred through theory alone ... "1 2 dents as if this indisputably confirmed his
argument. "The clashes its members had
The charge that the Frankfurt School with the German New Left in the 1960s
scorned praxis seems to be irresistible, with
were merely the working out of this earlier
an appeal especially to those who, in iden- transformation." (p.296) This "merely
tifying revolutionary praxis with heaving working out" is hardly the whole story.
explosives at the ruling class, conclude One could as well refer to Marcuse's differ-
with relief that all others are liberals or ences with the student movement - his
conservatives. The notion that the Frank- refusal to endorse the "smash the universi-
furt School "jettisoned that central ty" slogan - as proof of his decline and
premise of Marx's work, the unity of retreat, which it was not. To be sure, there
theory and praxis" is based on jettisoning
is aastory to be told, not only of Marcuse's
increasingly political writings, but Hork-
major part of critical theory. It misses their
unyielding insistence that this unity is also heimer's increasingly reactionary ones, to
a disunity; it is to be attained, not decreed. say nothing of Habermas or his relation to
Critical theory does not set forth an action the Frankfurt School or to the student
program - but neither do the three vol- movement. But Jay cautiously avoids these
umes of Capital. "On the identity of complexities by mentioning, not discus-
theory and praxis," wrote Horkheimer, sing"is them.
not to be forgotten their difference." 1 3
The conclusion that Jay draws from all of
In any case, if one is to bring up the charge
this is more projection and hope than fact;
of the flight from praxis, it is incumbent to the argument and violates the materi-
it fits
outline the real possibilities and alterna- al. "... in the end, the Institute presented
tives from which the Frankfurt School a revision of Marxism so substantial that it
supposedly fled: what, in short, should forfeited the right to be included among its
they have been doing? Jay, as always, many offshoots." (p.296) For Jay at this
states but hardly overstates his point. "It is point to summon Lukacs as the referee,
however at least arguable that Critical shows an unusual knowledge of the off-
Theory would have been enriched if the shoots of Marxism; "in 1962 Lukacs

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
236

voiced his and other Marxists' disdain for manuals; with Fromm's later works this
the Frankfurt School." There was no love distance has only increased.
lost between the Frankfurt School and the
later Lukacs: Adorno once dubbed In his presentation of the Fromm/Marcuse
Lukacs' Destruction of Reason as the de- dispute, Jay broaches another reason for
struction of Lukacs' own reason. On the their differences which is more insidious
Marxism of the Frankfurt School one since it not only dissolves the objective
could do well to ponder what the dying content of critical theory, but recurs
Horkheimer wrote in his letter-forward to throughout the book. This is Jay's tenden-
Jay's own book: "After our emigration to cy to degrade dialectical thought into a
America via Geneva, the Marxist interpre- mere subjective mannerism. "From his
tation of social events remained, to be sure, writings alone it seems evident that
dominant, which did not mean in any way, Fromm's sensibility was less ironic than
however, that a dogmatic materialism had that of the other members of the inner
become the decisive theme of our posi- circle [ of the Frankfurt School], his ap-
tion." 16 proach to life less colored by the aesthetic
nuances shared by both Horkheimer and
The corollary of Jay's surgical separation Adomo." (p. 101) The notion here, that
of Marxism from the Frankfurt School is critical theory is aesthetic and ironic, too
ephemeral
his belittling the objective nature of dialec- for the real world, is the favorite
tical and critical thought. Again this func- bravado of the pseudo-toughness of rugged
tions on the level of observations and com- empiricism and crude Marxism. Elsewhere
ments which are tacked onto presentations we are also told of the "dark ironies" of the
or texts. Hence, he first presents the Frankfurt School (p.1 12), or of its
Fromm/Marcuse dispute, and then cannot "cosmic irony." (p.67) The title of the
resist reducing and losing it. "As is often book itself suggests that dialectical
the case with intellectual controversies be- thought is mere fantasy of the mind; and in
tween former friends and colleagues... fact the only places where the title occurs
minor points of difference assume greater in the text are in references to Adorno's
importance than the larger areas of agree- subjective qualities. "This distance from
ment. . . Marcuse's interpretation of the the subject allowed his [ Adorno's] dialec-
Nirvana principle was really not that far tical imagination full sway." (p. 186) Or,
from the sentiment Fromm had ex- music was a "particulary rich field for the
pressed ...." "Thus despite both men's play of his dialectical imagination."
insistence that their positions were miles (p. 182)
apart, they seemed to converge on at least
the one question of the strength and dura- One final instance of Jay's neutralization
bility of an instinct to die." (pp. 111-12) In of critical theory can be mentioned. He
order to round out the chapter with agree- argues that the Frankfurt School failed to
ments, Jay leaves out the antagonisms that develop an "autonomous theory of poli-
made for the disagreements. If Fromm and tics" as it apparently did for culture. "Al-
Marcuse converge on this "one question," though the Frankfurt School had already
which they do not, it is incidental to what begun to question the derivative nature of
separates them: questions of negativity, culture assumed by mechanistic Marxists,
sexuality, theory and therapy, love in an it was slower to do the same for politics."
unfree world; and so on. The works that (p. 118) They shared an "underestimation
Marcuse and Fromm published at about of the political sphere. . ." (p. 118) Such
the same time, Eros and Civilization and an argument rests on a host of misconcep-
The Art of Loving illustrate the gap be- tions, not the least is that critical theory
tween critical theory and 'how to do it' developed a "discrete" theory of culture,

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
237

art, psychology, and so on. They re- this is an intellectual history, but that it is a
conceived the relationship of political history of intellectuals; its weakness is not
economy and culture, but hardly rendered that it abstracts concepts from a socio-
them into two distinct units. But Jay is economic reality and gives them a life of
happy only with an evolution away from their own, but it gives them no life, re-
Marxism, and laments where critical ducing them to functions of particular
theory remains too Marxist to be misinter- people. Adorno, in his Hegel book, wrote
preted. His logic points to the pluralistic of the necessity to, as it were, experience
academic universe of separate disciplines concepts; and Hegel himself wrote that
and friendly experts. He closes his argu- "the living spirit, embedded in a philo-
ment with this statement: "One of the sophy, demands in order to be revealed, to
ironies of the Institute's slowness to be so by a kindred spirit."1 7 Jay, if a
acknowledge the new primacy of politics kindred spirit and friend of critical theory
was that at this very time, the orthodoxy inand Marxism, is also a stranger.
the Soviet Union itself had shifted in that
direction, stressing political voluntarism
rather than objective conditions. Stalin,
who was responsible for the theoretical
change, was merely ratifying the reality of Notes
Soviet practice." (p.1 18-19) That critical
theory lags behind the ratification of l M. Horkheimer, "Die gegenwartige Lage der
Stalinism is an "irony" that perhaps only Sozialphilosophie und die Aufgaben eines Insti-
Jay can enjoy. tuts fur Sozialforschung," (1931) in Hork-
heimer, Grunberg, Anfdnge der KRITISCHE
If this book were not destined to become Theorie (n.p.,n.d.), p. 28-9.
important and widely read, one could 2 Zeitschrift FUR Sozialforschung, III(1934),
t.79.
dimiss Jay's comments and conclusions as
M. Horkheimer, "Forward," Zeitschrift FUR
the failings of a liberal and conscientious
Sozialforschung, VIII (1939-40), p.321.
chronicler occasionally departing from his 4 M. Horkheimer, "Die Juden und Europa,"
otherwise neutral account; although praise Zeitschrift FUR Sozialforschung, VIII
can be freely accorded to the scholarship (1939-40), p. 132.
and wealth of materials, this in itself is not 5 A. Sohn-Rethel in Die Frankfurt Schulf IM
sufficient for an important and definitive Licht DES Marxismus, hrsg. J.H. von Heiseler, et
work. Leaving the story as if it ended in al. (Frankfurt, 1970), p. 132.
6 For a recent exploration of this relationship,
1950, rather than exploding with One
grounded in critical theory, see William Leiss,
Dimensional Man, the rediscovery and
The Domination OF Nature (New York, 1972).
republication of the older essays of Ador-
7 K. Marx, Grundrisse (Penguin Books, 1973),
no and Horkheimer, and the renewal of the p.87.
Left and a whole series of questions within 8 For a discussion of 'second-nature' and history,
and on Marxism, is to do an injustice to see R. Jacoby, "Towards a Critique of Automatic
critical theory that resists any form of reifi-Marxism: The Politics of Philosophy from
cation. Lukacs to the Frankfurt School," Telos 10
(Winter, 1971), esp. pp. 141-44.
T.W. Adorno, "Spatkapitalismus oder Indus-
This injustice is compounded by Jay's
triegesellschaft? " in Adorno, Aufsatze ZUR
analysis which, if benign, works to sup-
Gesellschafts Theorie UND Methodologie
press the Marxist and revolutionary core of
(Frankfurt, 1970), p.153.
critical theory. The failure of this success-
A lecture of Adorno's from the early 1930s that
ful book is in its distance from the veryhas recently been published - since Jay's book -
concepts it is presenting; their living core can further correct his argument. Adorno's lec-
remains closed to Jay. The flaw is not that ture, "Die Idee der Naturgeschichte" shows that

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
238

the theme of nature and second-nature was al-


ready programmatically set forth in 1932, and
was not simply, as Jay states, a "secondary" or
late concern. Moreover, the lecture specifically

IllJ|| lll lll| l | ||lll Ilj l , ll||ll|| |ll|| l i


takes up the objection that a dialectic of second-
nature means the replacement of the historical
dialectic. Addressing himself to the "relation of Zeitsdhrift frSozalwise haft
these things to historical materialism," Adorno
declared that it was not a question of "the re-
placement of one theory by another, but of the
Herausgeber: Klaus Horn
immanent drawing out of a theory . . . a drawing Claus Koch
out of certain of the fundamentals of the materi- Wolf-Dieter Narr
Claus Offe
alist dialectic]" "Die Idee der Naturgeschichte,"
in Adorno Gesammelte Schriften, Band I (Philo- Dieter Senghaas
Winfried Vogt
sophische Fruschriften) (Frankfurt a/Main,
1973), p.365 Redaktion: Claus Koch
l For example, Horkheimer, "Ein neuer Ideolo-
giebegriff? " (1930) in Horkheimer, Sozialphilo- LEVIATHAN erscheint vierteljahrlich.
sophische Studien (Frankfurt, 1972): Adorno, Ab 1/1974 hat jedes Heft ca. 152 Seiten.
Studentenabonnement DM 30,- jahrlich
"Sociology of Knowledge and its Conscious-
Normalabonnement DM 40,- jahrlich
ness," (1937) Prisms (London, 1967): and Einzelpreis DM 12,-
"Ideology," (1956) in Frankfurt Institute of
Social Research, Aspects OF Sociology (Boston,
Aus dem Inhalt von Heft 1/1974:
1973). Hartmut Elsenhans. Aus der Olkrise zu einer
l This is now in English, in Telos, 15 (Spring, europaischen Entwicklungspolitik.
1973). Samuel Bowles/Herbert Gintis. Intelligenz-
12 T.W. Adorno, "Marginalien zu Theorie und quotient und Klassenstruktur in den USA.
Gertrud Nunner-Winkler. Nachbemerkung zu
Praxis," Stich tworte (Frankfurt, 1969), p.191.
,,lntelligenzquotient und Klassenstruktur
13 M. Horkheimer, "Zum Problem der Wahr- in den USA"
heit," in Kritische Theorie DER Gesellschaft, I. Martin Dannecker/Reimut Reiche. Die
(Frankfurt, 1968), p.256. kollektive Neurose der Homosexuellen.
14 For one glimpse of this reality see L.J. Edin- Ulrich Albrecht. Transnationale Rustungs-
ger, German Exilf Politics (Berkeley, Calif., konzerne in Westeuropa.
1956). Gerd Junne. Eurogeldmarkt, multinationale
Konzerne und die verminderte Wirksamkeit
15 T.W. Adorno, "Erpresste Versohnung," in
von Staatsinterventionen.
Adorno, Noten ZUR Literatur, II (Frankfurt,
Wolf-Dieter Narr. Der geplagte Epimetheus.
1961), p.153. Zum ,,Asiatischen Drama" von Gunnar Myrdal.
16 See also his essay from 1968, "Marx heute,"
Aus dem Inhalt von Heft 2/1974:
in Horkheimer, Gesellschaft IM Ubergang Wolf-Dieter Narr. Gefordert: Eine neue
(Frankfurt, 1972).
Verwaltungs-Akademie.
1 7 G.W.F. Hegel, Jenaer Schriften: Werke, 2 Hellmut Wollmann. Das Stadtebauforderungs-
(Frankfurt, 1970), p.16. gesetz als Instrument staatlicher Intervention -
fur wen?
Hartmut Haussermann. Die administrative
Organisation als Problem politischer Innovation.
Winfried Vogt. Zur langfristigen okonomischen
Entwicklung eines kapitalistischen Systems -
Eine Prazision.
Gerhard Haupt/Stephan Leibfried. Planung
im Kapitalismus - Das franzosische Modell.
Heinz Kurz. Kritik am Vogtschen Modell.
Renate Damus. Determinanten von Buro-
kratisierungsprozessen in der DDR.

527V

This content downloaded from 190.226.176.33 on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms