Scuola di Francoforte

Da Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera.

Questa voce riguardante un argomento di filosofia non è ancora stata tradotta completamente dalla lingua inglese. Se puoi, terminala o riscrivila tu, eliminando il testo in lingua straniera quando hai finito. Traduzione iniziata in maggio 2006 • Vedi le altre voci da tradurre dalla stessa lingua e dello stesso argomento. Nota: se non vedi il testo da tradurre, potrebbe essere nascosto: fai clic su modifica per visualizzarlo. Prima di salvare la pagina, non dimenticare di eliminare o spostare i segni <!-- e --> che delimitano il testo da nascondere.

Non usare traduttori automatici!

La Scuola di Francoforte è una scuola filosofica e sociologica neomarxista. Il nucleo originario di tale scuola emerse nell'ambiente del neonato Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale (Institut für Sozialforschung) dell'Università Johann Wolfgang Goethe di Francoforte sul Meno nel 1923, sotto la guida dello storico marxista Karl Grünberg. Il nucleo che successivamente si ampliò per numero di studiosi ed ambiti di ricerca. Il primo peridodo di attività della scuola si inquadra nel primo dopoguerra, tra gli anni Venti e gli anni Trenta; all'avvento del nazismo il gruppo lasciò la Germania e si trasferì dapprima a Ginevra, poi a Parigi e infine a New York, dove continuò la sua attività. Dopo la seconda guerra mondiale alcuni esponenti (tra cui Adorno, Horkheimer e Pollock) tornarono in Germania per fondare un nuovo Istituto per la ricerca sociale.

L'espressione "Scuola di Francoforte" è una denominazione informale usata per designare quei pensatori che furono affiliati o influenzati dall'Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale: non fu mai la denominazione di alcuna istituzione, né i suoi appartenenti la usarono per descrivere sé stessi.

La scuola raggruppò studiosi di diverse discipline e ambiti culturali, ma la linea di pensiero che ha accomunato tutti gli esponenti risiede nella critica della società presente, impostata su un pensiero negativo atto a smascherare le contraddizioni del contemporaneo vivere collettivo. L'ideale di società e di uomo a cui fa riferimento questa critica è quella utopistica e rivoluzionaria del marxismo; l'elaborazione di questa filosofia da parte della Scuola è autonoma e originale, e per alcuni studiosi (come Horkheimer) implica addirittura il discostamento da alcuni punti centrali del pensiero di Marx. Nel complesso questa linea di interpretazione si pone polemicamente in contrasto con le correnti di pensiero marxiste diffuse all'inizio del Secolo, influenzate o dall'ortodossia sovietica o dalle correnti revisionistiche.

Le motivazioni storiche che stavano alla base della reinterpretazione e dello sviluppo della filosofia marxista da parte dei pensatori della Scuola affondavano le loro radici nel fallimento della rivoluzione della classe operaia nell'Europa occidentale, negli sviluppi della rivoluzione bolscevica, vista come esempio negativo di "rivoluzione fallita", e nell'ascesa dei totalitarismi in gran parte d'Europa, anche in nazioni economicamente, tecnologicamente, e culturalmente avanzate come la Germania; essi si prefissero di discernere quali aspetti del pensiero di Marx potessero effettivamente chiarire quell'evoluzione delle condizioni sociali che lo stesso Marx non aveva previsto. Dalla Scuola emersero altri filoni di pensiero il cui obbiettivo rimase sempre lo sviluppo critico del pensiero marxista così da attualizzarlo e arricchirlo con l'analisi di altre discipline (psicoanalisi, sociologia). È sotto questi aspetti che Max Weber e Sigmund Freud esercitarono notevole influenza.

L'enfatizzare sulla componente "critica" della teoria derivava significativamente dal loro tentativo di superare i limiti del positivismo, del crudo materialismo, e della fenomenologia ritornando alla filosofia critica di Kant e dei suoi successori dell'idealismo tedesco, principalmente Hegel; in particolare con riferimento all'enfasi che questi pose sulla negazione e la contraddizione come proprietà inerenti della realtà, nonché all'approccio totalizzante e globale con cui il filosofo tedesco aveva studiato le connessioni tra i diversi aspetti del reale. Un'influenza decisiva la esercitò la pubblicazione nel 1930 dei Manoscritti economico-filosofici e dell'Ideologia tedesca, che mostrò gli elementi di continuità con l'Hegelismo che caratterizzavano la filosofia di Marx: Marcuse fu uno dei primi ad articolare il significato teoretico di questi testi.

Indice 1 Il primo periodo 2 The Second Phase 3 The Third Phase 4 Principali esponenti della Scuola di Francoforte 5 Critici della Scuola di Francoforte 6 Bibliografia 7 Collegamenti esterni

[modifica] Il primo periodo

L'istituto diede i contributi maggiori in relazione a due aspetti riguardanti la possibilità dei soggetti umani di agire razionalmente e prendersi così carico delle contraddizioni della propria società e degli sviluppi della propria storia. Il primo aspetto ha a che fare con quei fenomeni sociali che nel marxismo sono considerati sovrastruttura e ideologia: la famiglia, le struttre gerarchiche, il regno dell'estetica e della cultura di massa. Gli studi ebbero qui una preoccupazione comune riguardo all'abilità con cui il capitalismo distrugge le condizioni previe al nascere di una coscienza critica e rivoluzionaria. . Questo significava arrivare ad una consapevolezza sofisticata della dimensione profonda dove l'oppressione sociale alimenta se stessa. Significava anche l'inizio di una esplorazione da parte della teoria critica dell'ideologia come parte dei fondamenti della struttura sociale . The Institute and various collaborators had a gigantic effect on (especially American) social science through their work The Authoritarian Personality, which conducted extensive empirical research, using sociological and psychoanalytic categories, in order to characterize the forces that led individuals to affiliate with or support fascist movements or parties. The study found the assertion of universals, or even truth, to be a hallmark of fascism; by calling into question any notion of a higher ideal, or a shared mission for humanity, The Authoritarian Personality contributed greatly to the emergence of the counterculture.

The nature of Marxism itself formed the second focus of the Institute, and in this context the concept of critical theory originated. The term served several purposes - first, it contrasted from traditional notions of theory, which were largely either positivist or scientific. Second, the term allowed them to escape the politically charged label of "Marxism." Third, it explicitly linked them with the "critical philosophy" of Immanuel Kant, where the term "critique" meant philosophical reflection on the limits of claims made for certain kinds of knowledge and a direct connection between such critique and the emphasis on moral autonomy. In an intellectual context defined by dogmatic positivism and scientism on the one hand and dogmatic "scientific socialism" on the other, critical theory meant to rehabilitate through such a philosophically critical approach an orientation toward revolutionary agency, or at least its possibility, at a time when it seemed in decline.

Finally, in the context of both Marxist-Leninist and Social-Democratic orthodoxy, which emphasized Marxism as a new kind of positive science, they were linking up with the implicit epistemology of Karl Marx's work, which presented itself as critique, as in Marx's "Capital: a critique of political economy", wanting to emphasize that Marx was attempting to create a new kind of critical analysis oriented toward the unity of theory and revolutionary practice rather than a new kind of positive science. In the 1960s, Jürgen Habermas raised the epistemological discussion to a new level in his "Knowledge and Human Interests", by identifying critical knowledge as based on principles that differentiated it either from the natural sciences or the humanities, through its orientation to self-reflection and emancipation.

Although Horkheimer's distinction between traditional and critical theory in one sense merely repeated Marx's dictum that philosophers have always interpreted the world and the point is to change it, the Institute, in its critique of ideology, took on such philosophical currents as positivism, phenomenology, existentialism, and pragmatism, with an implied critique of contemporary Marxism, which had turned dialectics into an alternate science or metaphysics. The Institute attempted to reformulate dialectics as a concrete method, continually aware of the specific social roots of thought and of the specific constellation of forces that affected the possibility of liberation. Accordingly, critical theory rejected the materialist metaphysics of orthodox Marxism. For Horkheimer and his associates, materialism meant the orientation of theory towards practice and towards the fulfillment of human needs, not a metaphysical statement about the nature of reality.

[modifica] The Second Phase

The second phase of Frankfurt School critical theory centres principally on two works that rank as classics of twentieth-century thought: Horkheimer's and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment and Adorno's Minima Moralia. The authors wrote both works during the Institute's American exile in the Nazi period. While retaining much of the Marxian analysis, in these works critical theory has shifted its emphasis. The critique of capitalism has turned into a critique of Western civilization as a whole. Indeed, the Dialectic of Enlightenment uses the Odyssey as a paradigm for the analysis of bourgeois consciousness. Horkheimer and Adorno already present in these works many themes that have come to dominate the social thought of recent years: the domination of nature appears as central to Western civilization long before ecology had become a catchphrase of the day.

The analysis of reason now goes one stage further. The rationality of Western civilization appears as a fusion of domination and of technological rationality, bringing all of external and internal nature under the power of the human subject. In the process, however, the subject itself gets swallowed up, and no social force analogous to the proletariat can be identified that will enable the subject to emancipate itself. Hence the subtitle of Minima Moralia: "Reflections from Damaged Life". In Adorno's words,

"For since the overwhelming objectivity of historical movement in its present phase consists so far only in the dissolution of the subject, without yet giving rise to a new one, individual experience necessarily bases itself on the old subject, now historically condemned, which is still for-itself, but no longer in-itself. The subject still feels sure of its autonomy, but the nullity demonstrated to subjects by the concentration camp is already overtaking the form of subjectivity itself."

Consequently, at a time when it appears that reality itself has become 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 the dialectic can become a means to domination: "Its truth or untruth, therefore, is not inherent in the method itself, but in its intention in the historical process." And this intention must be toward integral freedom and happiness: "the only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption". How far from orthodox Marxism is Adorno's conclusion: "But beside the demand thus placed on thought, the question of the reality or unreality of redemption itself hardly matters."

Adorno, a trained musician, wrote The Philosophy of Modern Music, in which he, in essence, polemicizes against beauty itself -- because it has become part of the ideology of advanced capitalist society and the false consciousness that contributes to domination by prettifying it. Avant-garde art and music 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. It forbids continuity and development. Musical language is polarized according to its extreme; towards gestures of shock resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other towards a crystalline standstill of a human being whom anxiety causes to freeze in her tracks... Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its goal. It is the surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked."

This view of modern 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. It has been criticized by those who do not share its conception of modern society as a false totality that renders obsolete traditional conceptions and images of beauty and harmony.

[modifica] The Third Phase

From these thoughts only a short step remained to the third phase of the Frankfurt School, which coincided with the postwar period, particularly from the early 1950s to the middle 1960s. With the growth of advanced industrial society under Cold War conditions, the critical theorists recognized that the structure of capitalism and history had changed decisively, that the modes of oppression operated differently, and that the industrial working class no longer remained the determinate negation of capitalism. This led to the attempt to root the dialectic in an absolute method of negativity, as in Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man and Adorno's Negative Dialectics. During this period the Institute of Social Research re-settled in Frankfurt (although many of its associates remained in the United States), with the task not merely of continuing its research but of becoming a leading force in the sociological education and democratization of West Germany. This led to a certain systematization of the Institute's entire accumulation of empirical research and theoretical analysis.

More importantly, however, the Frankfurt School attempted to define the fate of reason in the new historical period. While Marcuse did so through analysis of structural changes in the labor process under capitalism and inherent features of the methodology of science, Horkheimer and Adorno concentrated on a re-examination of the foundation of critical theory. This effort appears in systematized form in Adorno's Negative Dialectics, which tries to redefine dialectics for an era in which "philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to realize it was missed". Negative dialectics expresses the idea of critical thought so conceived that the apparatus of domination cannot co-opt it. Its central notion, long a focal one for Horkheimer and Adorno, suggests that the original sin of thought lies in its attempt to eliminate all that is other than thought, the attempt by the subject to devour the object, the striving for identity. This reduction makes thought the accomplice of domination. Negative Dialectics rescues the "preponderance of the object", not through a naive epistemological or metaphysical realism but through a thought based on differentiation, paradox, and ruse: a "logic of disintegration". Adorno thoroughly criticizes Heidegger's fundamental ontology, which reintroduces idealistic and identity-based concepts under the guise of having overcome the philosophical tradition.

Negative Dialectics comprises a monument to the end of the tradition of the individual subject as the locus of criticism. Without a revolutionary working class, the Frankfurt School had no one to rely on but the individual subject. But, as the liberal capitalist social basis of the autonomous individual receded into the past, the dialectic based on it became more and more abstract. This stance helped prepare the way for the fourth, current phase of the Frankfurt School, shaped by the communication theory of Habermas.

Habermas's work takes the Frankfurt School's abiding interests in rationality, the human subject, democratic socialism, and the dialectical method and overcomes a set of contradictions that always weakened critical theory: the contradictions between the materialist and transcendental methods, between Marxian social theory and the individualist assumptions of critical rationalism between technical and social rationalization, and between cultural and psychological phenomena on the one hand and the economic structure of society on the other. The Frankfurt School avoided taking a stand on the precise relationship between the materialist and transcendental methods, which led to ambiguity in their writings and confusion among their readers. Habermas' epistemology synthesizes these two traditions by showing that phenomenological and transcendental analysis can be subsumed under a materialist theory of social evolution, while the materialist theory makes sense only as part of a quasi-transcendental theory of emancipatory knowledge that is the self-reflection of cultural evolution. The simultaneously empirical and transcendental nature of emancipatory knowledge becomes the foundation stone of critical theory.

By locating the conditions of rationality in the social structure of language use, Habermas moves the locus of rationality from the autonomous subject to subjects in interaction. Rationality is a property not of individuals per se, but rather of structures of undistorted communication. In this notion Habermas has overcome the ambiguous plight of the subject in critical theory. If capitalistic technological society weakens the autonomy and rationality of the subject, it is not through the domination of the individual by the apparatus but through technological rationality supplanting a describable rationality of communication. And, in his sketch of communicative ethics as the highest stage in the internal logic of the evolution of ethical systems, Habermas hints at the source of a new political practice that incorporates the imperatives of evolutionary rationality.

Frankfurt School critical theory has influenced some segments of the Left wing and leftist thought (particularly the New Left). Herbert Marcuse has occasionally been described as the theorist or intellectual progenitor of the New Left. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.-->

[modifica] Principali esponenti della Scuola di Francoforte

• Theodor Adorno
• Max Horkheimer
• Walter Benjamin
• Herbert Marcuse
• Alfred Sohn-Rethel
• Leo Löwenthal
• Franz Neumann
• Franz Oppenheimer
• Friedrich Pollock
• Erich Fromm
• Alfred Schmidt
• Jürgen Habermas
• Oskar Negt
• Karl A. Wittfogel
• Susan Buck-Morss
• Axel Honneth
• Franz Borkenau

[modifica] Critici della Scuola di Francoforte

• Henryk Grossman
• György Lukács
• Umberto Eco

[modifica] Bibliografia

• Martin Jay. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923-1950. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1996. ISBN 0520204239.
• Rolf Wiggershaus. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1995. ISBN 0262731134.
• Jeremy J. Shapiro, "The Critical Theory of Frankfurt", Times Literary Supplement, Oct. 4, 1974, No. 3,787. (Material from this publication has been used or adapted for the present article with permission.)

[modifica] Collegamenti esterni

• Breve storia della Scuola di Francoforte e dell'Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale
• (EN) History of the Institute of Social Research
• (EN) Illuminations - The Critical Theory Project
• (EN) Introduction to the Frankfurt School
• (EN) The Frankfurt School (Marxists Internet Archive)
• (EN) Estratti da "Eros and Civilization"
• (ES) Escuela de Frankfurt