Метод против истины (Часть 1. По направлению к одномерности — становление критической теории Франкфуртской школы)

Abstract

The article is the first part of a study and it is devoted to the development of the theoretical views the first generation of the Frankfurt School. The main attention is paid to its place in the history of Marxist social theory and the development of «left idea» in the 20th century. In this context, the relationship of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, which is the institutional core of the Frankfurt School, with Soviet Marxism is considered, as well as the degree of initial correspondence of the interests of the leaders of the Frankfurt School to the Marxist tradition and the reasons for their gradual departure from Marxism since the 1930s. The non-Marxist nature of the interests and professional and educational background of the leading employees of the Institute and a sharp departure from the original positions of historical materialism after M. Horheimer took the post of Institute’s director are noted. It emphasizes the significant influence on the theoretical development and political position of Frankfurt School’s leaders of the National Socialists’ coming to power in Germany and forced emigration — unlike their Soviet counterparts patronized by the state, the staff of the Institute found themselves in a situation of socio-political orphanhood. It is noted that the central theme the Frankfurt School’s research after the proclamation in the second half of the 1930s «critical theory» as the key methodological reference point, the «authoritarian personality» becomes, in which T. Adorno, M. Horheimer, G. Marcuse and E. Fromm (from whose works on the «authoritarian character» the development of this topic began) see the basis of social injustice and totalitarianism. It is argued that the concept of «authoritarian personality» turns inside out the original historical materialism, characteristic for the studies of the Institute staff in the 1920s, and psychologizes political relations, as well as forms the means of social stigmatization and discrimination of dissidents. This reveals in the views the Frankfurt School leaders themselves signs of an «authoritarian personality» and one-dimensionality, which were initially the main objects of criticism for them.