Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) is 1 History

a school of social theory and philosophy associated in
part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe
University in Frankfurt, Germany. The school initially 1.1 The Institute for Social Research
formed during the interwar period in Germany and con-
sisted of dissidents who were at home neither in the ex- Main article: Institute for Social Research
istent capitalist, fascist, nor communist systems that had
formed during the interwar period. Meanwhile, many of The term “Frankfurt School” arose informally to de-
these theorists believed that traditional theory could not scribe the thinkers affiliated or merely associated with
adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected develop- the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research; it is not the
ment of capitalist societies in the twentieth century. Crit- title of any specific position or institution per se, and few
ical of both capitalism and Soviet socialism, their writings of these theorists used the term themselves. The Insti-
pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to social tute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung) was
development.[1] founded in 1923 by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist legal and
Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt political professor at the University of Vienna,[10] as an
School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind, adjunct of the University of Frankfurt; it was the first
thus sharing the same assumptions and being preoccu- Marxist-oriented research center affiliated with a major
pied with similar questions.[2] In order to fill in the per- German university.[3] However, the school can trace its
ceived omissions of traditional Marxism, they sought to earliest roots back to Felix Weil, who used money from
draw answers from other schools of thought, hence using his father’s grain business to finance the Institut.
the insights of antipositivist sociology, psychoanalysis, Weil (1898-1975), a young Marxist, had written his
existential philosophy, and other disciplines.[3] The doctoral thesis (published by Karl Korsch) on the practi-
school’s main figures sought to learn from and synthesize cal problems of implementing socialism. With the hope
the works of such varied thinkers as Kant, Hegel, Marx, of bringing different trends of Marxism together, Weil
Freud, Weber and Lukács.[4] organized a week-long symposium (the Erste Marxistis-
Following Marx, they were concerned with the condi- che Arbeitswoche) in 1922, a meeting attended by Georg
tions that allow for social change and the establishment Lukács, Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, Friedrich
of rational institutions.[5] Their emphasis on the “critical” Pollock and others. The event was so successful that Weil
component of theory was derived significantly from their set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a
attempt to overcome the limits of positivism, materialism permanent institute. Weil negotiated with the Ministry
and determinism by returning to Kant’s critical philoso- of Education that the Director of the Institute would be
phy and its successors in German idealism, principally a full professor from the state system, so that the Institut
Hegel’s philosophy, with its emphasis on dialectic and would have the status of a University institution.[11]
contradiction as inherent properties of human reality. Although György Lukács and Karl Korsch both attended
Since the 1960s, Frankfurt School critical theory has the Arbeitswoche which had included a study of Korsch’s
increasingly been guided by Jürgen Habermas's work Marxism and Philosophy, both were too committed to po-
on communicative reason,[6][7] linguistic intersubjectivity litical activity and Party membership to join the Institut,
and what Habermas calls “the philosophical discourse of although Korsch participated in publishing ventures for
modernity".[8] Critical theorists such as Raymond Geuss a number of years. The way Lukács was obliged to re-
and Nikolas Kompridis have voiced opposition to Haber- pudiate his History and Class Consciousness, published in
mas, claiming that he has undermined the aspirations for 1923 and probably a major inspiration for the work of the
social change which originally gave purpose to critical Frankfurt School, indicated that independence from the
theory’s various projects—for example the problem of Communist Party was necessary for genuine theoretical
[11]
what reason should mean, the analysis and enlargement work.
of “conditions of possibility” for social emancipation, and The philosophical tradition now referred to as the “Frank-
the critique of modern capitalism.[9] furt School” is perhaps particularly associated with Max
Horkheimer (philosopher, sociologist and social psychol-
ogist), who took over as the institute’s director in 1930
and recruited many of the school’s most talented theo-

1
2 1 HISTORY

rists, including Theodor W. Adorno (philosopher, sociol- Early members of the Frankfurt School were:
ogist, musicologist), Erich Fromm (psychoanalyst), and
Herbert Marcuse (philosopher).[3] • Max Horkheimer

• Theodor W. Adorno
1.2 The German prewar context
• Herbert Marcuse
The political turmoil of Germany’s troubled interwar
years greatly affected the School’s development. Its • Friedrich Pollock
thinkers were particularly influenced by the failure of the
working-class revolution in Western Europe (precisely • Erich Fromm
where Marx had predicted that a communist revolution
would take place) and by the rise of Nazism in such • Otto Kirchheimer
an economically and technologically advanced nation as
• Leo Löwenthal
Germany. This led many of them to take up the task
of choosing what parts of Marx’s thought might serve to • Franz Leopold Neumann
clarify contemporary social conditions which Marx him-
self had never seen. Another key influence also came
from the publication in the 1930s of Marx’s Economic- People who were associated with the Institute or its the-
Philosophical Manuscripts and The German Ideology, orists include:
which showed the continuity with Hegelianism that un-
derlay Marx’s thought. • Siegfried Kracauer
As the growing influence of National Socialism became
• Alfred Sohn-Rethel
ever more threatening, its founders decided to prepare to
move the Institute out of the country.[12] Following Adolf
• Walter Benjamin
Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the Institute left Germany
for Geneva, before moving to New York City in 1935,
where it became affiliated with Columbia University. Its Later theorists with roots in Frankfurt School critical the-
journal Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung was accordingly re- ory include:
named Studies in Philosophy and Social Science. It was
at this moment that much of its important work began • Jürgen Habermas
to emerge, having gained a favorable reception within
American and English academia. Horkheimer, Adorno • Claus Offe
and Pollock eventually resettled in West Germany in the
early 1950s, although Marcuse, Lowenthal, Kirchheimer • Axel Honneth
and others chose to remain in the United States. It was
only in 1953 that the Institute was formally re-established • Oskar Negt
[13]
in Frankfurt.
• Alfred Schmidt

• Albrecht Wellmer
1.3 Theorists
See also: List of critical theorists

Which “theorists” may be included in what is now called

the “Frankfurt School” will likely vary among differ-
ent scholars. Indeed, the title of “school” can often
be a misleading one, as the Institute’s members did not
always form a series of tightly woven, complementary
projects. Some scholars have therefore limited their view
of the Frankfurt School to Horkheimer, Adorno, Mar-
cuse, Lowenthal and Pollock.[5] However, most pre-war
theorists can be considered as having shared a very sim-
ilar paradigm. Although he was initially part of the
School’s inner circle, Jürgen Habermas is generally con- Max Horkheimer (front left), Theodor Adorno (front right),
sidered as the first to have diverged from Horkheimer’s and Jürgen Habermas in the background, right, in 1965 at
research program, thus giving rise to a new generation of Heidelberg.
critical theorists.
2.1 Critical theory and the critique of ideology 3

2 Theoretical work which merely applies a ready-made “template” to both

critique and action, critical theory seeks to be self-critical
and rejects any pretensions to absolute truth. Critical
2.1 Critical theory and the critique of ide- theory defends the primacy of neither matter (material-
ology ism) nor consciousness (idealism), arguing that both epis-
temologies distort reality to the benefit, eventually, of
The Frankfurt School’s work cannot be fully compre- some small group. What critical theory attempts to do
hended without equally understanding the aims and is to place itself outside of philosophical strictures and
objectives of critical theory. Initially outlined by the confines of existing structures. However, as a way
Max Horkheimer in his Traditional and Critical Theory of thinking and “recovering” humanity’s self-knowledge,
(1937), critical theory may be defined as a self-conscious critical theory often looks to Marxism for its methods and
social critique that is aimed at change and emancipation tools.[15]
through enlightenment, and does not cling dogmatically Horkheimer maintained that critical theory should be di-
to its own doctrinal assumptions.[14][15] The original aim rected at the totality of society in its historical specificity
of critical theory was to analyze the true significance of (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in
“the ruling understandings” generated in bourgeois soci- time), just as it should improve understanding of soci-
ety, in order to show how they misrepresented actual hu- ety by integrating all the major social sciences, including
man interaction in the real world, and in so doing func- geography, economics, sociology, history, political sci-
tioned to justify or legitimize the domination of people ence, anthropology, and psychology. While critical the-
by capitalism. A certain sort of story (a narrative) was ory must at all times be self-critical, Horkheimer insisted
provided to explain what was happening in society, but that a theory is only critical if it is explanatory. Criti-
the story concealed as much as it revealed. The Frank- cal theory must therefore combine practical and norma-
furt theorists generally assumed that their own task was tive thinking in order to “explain what is wrong with cur-
mainly to interpret all the other areas of society which rent social reality, identify actors to change it, and pro-
Marx had not dealt with, especially in the superstructure vide clear norms for criticism and practical goals for the
of society.[16] future.”[20] Whereas traditional theory can only mirror
Horkheimer opposed it to “traditional theory”, which and explain reality as it presently is, critical theory’s pur-
refers to theory in the positivistic, scientistic, or purely pose is to change it; in Horkheimer’s words the goal of
observational mode – that is, which derives generaliza- critical theory is “the emancipation of human beings from
tions or "laws" about different aspects of the world. the circumstances that enslave them”.[21]
Drawing upon Max Weber, Horkheimer argued that the Frankfurt School theorists were explicitly linking up with
social sciences are different from the natural sciences, the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, where the term
inasmuch as generalizations cannot be easily made from critique meant philosophical reflection on the limits of
so-called experiences, because the understanding of a claims made for certain kinds of knowledge and a direct
“social” experience itself is always fashioned by ideas that
connection between such critique and the emphasis on
are in the researchers themselves. What the researcher moral autonomy – as opposed to traditionally determin-
does not realize is that he is caught in a historical context
istic and static theories of human action. In an intellec-
in which ideologies shape the thinking; thus theory would tual context defined by dogmatic positivism and scientism
be conforming to the ideas in the mind of the researcher on the one hand and dogmatic "scientific socialism" on
rather than the experience itself: the other, critical theorists intended to rehabilitate Marx’s
For Horkheimer, approaches to understanding in the so- ideas through a philosophically critical approach.
cial sciences cannot simply imitate those in the natural Whereas both Marxist-Leninist and Social-Democratic
sciences. Although various theoretical approaches would orthodox thinkers viewed Marxism as a new kind of
come close to breaking out of the ideological constraints positive science, Frankfurt School theorists, such as
which restricted them, such as positivism, pragmatism, Horkheimer, rather based their work on the epistemo-
neo-Kantianism and phenomenology, Horkheimer would logical base of Karl Marx’s work, which presented itself
argue that they failed, because all were subject to a as critique, as in Marx’s Capital: A Critique of Political
“logico-mathematical” prejudice which separates theo- Economy. They thus emphasized that Marx was attempt-
retical activity from actual life (meaning that all these ing to create a new kind of critical analysis oriented to-
schools sought to find a logic which would always remain ward the unity of theory and revolutionary practice rather
true, independently of and without consideration for on- than a new kind of positive science. Critique, in this
going human activities). According to Horkheimer, the Marxian sense, meant taking the ideology of a society –
appropriate response to this dilemma is the development e.g. the belief in individual freedom or free market un-
of a critical theory.[18] der capitalism – and critiquing it by comparing it with the
The problem, Horkheimer argued, is epistemological: we social reality of that very society – e.g. social inequality
should not merely reconsider the scientist but the know- and exploitation. The methodology on which Frankfurt
ing individual in general.[19] Unlike orthodox Marxism, School theorists grounded this critique came to be what
4 2 THEORETICAL WORK

had before been established by Hegel and Marx, namely social order.[29]
the dialectical method. For their part, Frankfurt School theorists quickly came
to realize that a dialectical method could only be adopted
if it could be applied to itself—that is to say, if they
2.2 Dialectical method adopted a self-correcting method—a dialectical method
that would enable them to correct previous false di-
The Institute also attempted to reformulate dialectics as alectical interpretations. Accordingly, critical theory
a concrete method. The use of such a dialectical method rejected the dogmatic historicism and materialism of
can be traced back to the philosophy of Hegel, who con- orthodox Marxism.[30] Indeed, the material tensions and
ceived dialectic as the tendency of a notion to pass over class struggles of which Marx spoke were no longer
into its own negation as the result of conflict between its seen by Frankfurt School theorists as having the same
inherent contradictory aspects.[22] In opposition to previ- revolutionary potential within contemporary Western
ous modes of thought, which viewed things in abstraction, societies—an observation which indicated that Marx’s di-
each by itself and as though endowed with fixed proper- alectical interpretations and predictions were either in-
ties, Hegelian dialectic has the ability to consider ideas complete or incorrect.
according to their movement and change in time, as well
Contrary to orthodox Marxist praxis, which solely seeks
as according to their interrelations and interactions.[22]
to implement an unchangeable and narrow idea of “com-
History, according to Hegel, proceeds and evolves in a munism” into practice, critical theorists held that praxis
dialectical manner: the present embodies the rational and theory, following the dialectical method, should be
sublation, or “synthesis”, of past contradictions. His- interdependent and should mutually influence each other.
tory may thus be seen as an intelligible process (which When Marx famously stated in his Theses on Feuerbach
Hegel referred to as Weltgeist) which is moving towards that “philosophers have only interpreted the world in var-
a specific condition—the rational realization of human ious ways; the point is to change it”, his real idea was that
freedom.[23] However, considerations about the future philosophy’s only validity was in how it informed action.
were of no interest to Hegel,[24][25] for whom philoso- Frankfurt School theorists would correct this by claiming
phy cannot be prescriptive because it understands only that when action fails, then the theory guiding it must be
in hindsight. The study of history is thus limited to the reviewed. In short, socialist philosophical thought must
description of past and present realities.[23] Hence for be given the ability to criticize itself and “overcome” its
Hegel and his successors, dialectics inevitably lead to the own errors. While theory must inform praxis, praxis must
approval of the status quo—indeed, Hegel’s philosophy also have a chance to inform theory.
served as a justification for Christian theology and the
Prussian state.
This was fiercely criticized by Marx and the Young 2.3 Early influences
Hegelians, who claimed that Hegel had gone too far in de-
fending his abstract conception of “absolute Reason” and The intellectual influences on and theoretical focus of the
had failed to notice the “real” —i.e. undesirable and irra- first generation of Frankfurt School critical theorists can
be summarized as follows:
tional— life conditions of the working class. By turning
Hegel’s idealist dialectics upside-down, Marx advanced Responding to the intensification of alienation and
his own theory of dialectical materialism, arguing that irrationality in an advanced capitalist society, critical
“it is not the consciousness of men that determines their theory is a comprehensive, ideology-critical, historically
being, but, on the contrary, their social being that de- self-reflective body of theory aiming simultaneously to
termines their consciousness.”[26] Marx’s theory follows explain domination and point to the possibilities of bring-
a materialist law of history and space,[27] where the de- ing about a rational, humane, and free society. Frankfurt
velopment of the productive forces is seen as the pri- School critical theorists developed numerous theories of
mary motive force for historical change, and according the economic, political, cultural, and psychological dom-
to which the social and material contradictions inherent ination structures of advanced industrial civilization.
to capitalism will inevitably lead to its negation, thereby The Institute made major contributions in two areas relat-
replacing capitalism with a new rational form of society: ing to the possibility of human subjects to be rational, i.e.
communism.[28] individuals who could act rationally to take charge of their
Marx thus extensively relied on a form of dialectical anal- own society and their own history. The first consisted of
ysis. This method—to know the truth by uncovering the social phenomena previously considered in Marxism as
contradictions in presently predominant ideas and, by ex- part of the "superstructure" or as ideology: personality,
tension, in the social relations to which they are linked— family and authority structures (one of the earliest works
exposes the underlying struggle between opposing forces. published bore the title Studies of Authority and the Fam-
For Marx, it is only by becoming aware of the dialectic ily), and the realm of aesthetics and mass culture. Stud-
of such opposing forces, in a struggle for power, that in- ies saw a common concern here in the ability of capital-
dividuals can liberate themselves and change the existing ism to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary
2.4 Critique of Western civilization 5

political consciousness. This meant arriving at a sophis- an ambivalence which gave rise to the “pessimism” of the
ticated awareness of the depth dimension in which so- new critical theory over the possibility of human eman-
cial oppression sustains itself. It also meant the beginning cipation and freedom.[33] This ambivalence was rooted,
of critical theory’s recognition of ideology as part of the of course, in the historical circumstances in which the
foundations of social structure. work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of
National Socialism, state capitalism, and mass culture as
entirely new forms of social domination that could not
2.4 Critique of Western civilization be adequately explained within the terms of traditional
Marxist sociology.[34] For Adorno and Horkheimer, state
2.4.1 Dialectic of Enlightenment and Minima intervention in the economy had effectively abolished
Moralia the tension in capitalism between the "relations of pro-
duction" and “material productive forces of society”—a
The second phase of Frankfurt School critical theory cen- tension which, according to traditional Marxist theory,
tres principally on two works: Adorno and Horkheimer's constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism.
Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) and Adorno’s Minima The previously “free” market (as an “unconscious” mech-
Moralia (1951). The authors wrote both works during anism for the distribution of goods) and “irrevocable”
the Institute’s exile in America. While retaining much of private property of Marx’s epoch have gradually been re-
a Marxian analysis, in these works critical theory shifted placed by the centralized state planning and socialized
its emphasis. The critique of capitalism turned into a cri- ownership of the means of production in contemporary
tique of Western civilization as a whole. Indeed, the Di- Western societies.[35] The dialectic through which Marx
alectic of Enlightenment uses the Odyssey as a paradigm predicted the emancipation of modern society is thus sup-
for the analysis of bourgeois consciousness. Horkheimer pressed, effectively being subjugated to a positivist ratio-
and Adorno already present in these works many themes nality of domination.
that have come to dominate the social thought of recent Of this second “phase” of the Frankfurt School, philoso-
years; indeed, their exposition of the domination of na- pher and critical theorist Nikolas Kompridis writes that:
ture as a central characteristic of instrumental rationality
Kompridis claims that this “sceptical cul-de-sac” was ar-
in Western civilization was made long before ecology and
rived at with “a lot of help from the once unspeakable and
environmentalism had become popular concerns.
unprecedented barbarity of European fascism,” and could
The analysis of reason now goes one stage further. The not be gotten out of without “some well-marked [exit or]
rationality of Western civilization appears as a fusion of Ausgang, showing the way out of the ever-recurring night-
domination and of technological rationality, bringing all mare in which Enlightenment hopes and Holocaust hor-
of external and internal nature under the power of the hu- rors are fatally entangled.” However, this Ausgang, ac-
man subject. In the process, however, the subject itself cording to Kompridis, would not come until later – pur-
gets swallowed up, and no social force analogous to the portedly in the form of Jürgen Habermas’s work on the
proletariat can be identified that will enable the subject to intersubjective bases of communicative rationality.[36]
emancipate itself. Hence the subtitle of Minima Moralia:
“Reflections from Damaged Life”. In Adorno’s words,
Consequently, at a time when it appears that reality itself
has become the basis for ideology, the greatest contribu- 2.4.2 Philosophy of modern music
tion that critical theory can make is to explore the dialecti-
cal contradictions of individual subjective experience on Adorno, a trained musician, wrote The Philosophy of
the one hand, and to preserve the truth of theory on the Modern Music (1949), in which he, in essence, polemi-
other. Even dialectical progress is put into doubt: “its cizes against beauty itself ― because it has become part
truth or untruth is not inherent in the method itself, but of the ideology of advanced capitalist society and the false
in its intention in the historical process.” This intention consciousness that contributes to social domination. It
must be oriented toward integral freedom and happiness: hence contributes to the present sustainability of capital-
“the only philosophy which can be responsibly practiced ism by rendering it “aesthetically pleasing” and “agree-
in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things able”. Only avant-garde art and music may preserve the
as they would present themselves from the standpoint of truth by capturing the reality of human suffering. Hence:
redemption". Adorno goes on to distance himself from This view of modern art as producing truth only through
the “optimism” of orthodox Marxism: “beside the de- the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional
mand thus placed on thought, the question of the reality norms of beauty because they have become ideological
or unreality of redemption [i.e. human emancipation] it- is characteristic of Adorno and of the Frankfurt School
self hardly matters.”[32] generally. It has been criticized by those who do not share
From a sociological point of view, both Horkheimer’s and its conception of modern society as a false totality that
Adorno’s works contain a certain ambivalence concerning renders obsolete traditional conceptions and images of
the ultimate source or foundation of social domination, beauty and harmony.
6 3 CRITICISM OF FRANKFURT SCHOOL THEORISTS

2.5 Critical theory and domination the tradition of the individual subject as the locus of crit-
icism. Without a revolutionary working class, the Frank-
furt School had no one to rely on but the individual sub-
2.5.1 Negative dialectics
ject. But, as the liberal capitalist social basis of the au-
tonomous individual receded into the past, the dialectic
With the growth of advanced industrial society during the based on it became more and more abstract.
Cold War era, critical theorists recognized that the path
of capitalism and history had changed decisively, that the
modes of oppression operated differently, and that the 2.5.2 Habermas and communicative rationality
industrial working class no longer remained the determi-
nate negation of capitalism. This led to the attempt to Main article: Jürgen Habermas
root the dialectic in an absolute method of negativity, as
in Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964) and Adorno’s
Negative Dialectics (1966). During this period the Insti- Habermas’s work takes the Frankfurt School’s abiding
tute of Social Research re-settled in Frankfurt (although interests in rationality, the human subject, democratic
many of its associates remained in the United States) with socialism, and the dialectical method and overcomes
the task not merely of continuing its research but of be- a set of contradictions that always weakened critical
coming a leading force in the sociological education and theory: the contradictions between the materialist and
democratization of West Germany. This led to a certain transcendental methods, between Marxian social theory
systematization of the Institute’s entire accumulation of and the individualist assumptions of critical rationalism
empirical research and theoretical analysis. between technical and social rationalization, and between
cultural and psychological phenomena on the one hand
During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory par- and the economic structure of society on the other.
ticularly influenced some segments of the left wing and
leftist thought, particularly the New Left. Herbert Mar- The Frankfurt School avoided taking a stand on the pre-
cuse has occasionally been described as the theorist or cise relationship between the materialist and transcen-
intellectual progenitor of the New Left. Their critique of dental methods, which led to ambiguity in their writ-
technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civiliza- ings and confusion among their readers. Habermas’s
tion is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work epistemology synthesizes these two traditions by showing
also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular that phenomenological and transcendental analysis can be
culture and scholarly popular culture studies. subsumed under a materialist theory of social evolution,
while the materialist theory makes sense only as part of a
More importantly, however, the Frankfurt School at- quasi-transcendental theory of emancipatory knowledge
tempted to define the fate of reason in the new his- that is the self-reflection of cultural evolution. The simul-
torical period. While Marcuse did so through anal- taneously empirical and transcendental nature of emanci-
ysis of structural changes in the labor process under patory knowledge becomes the foundation stone of criti-
capitalism and inherent features of the methodology of cal theory.
science, Horkheimer and Adorno concentrated on a re-
examination of the foundation of critical theory. This ef- By locating the conditions of rationality in the social
fort appears in systematized form in Adorno’s Negative structure of language use, Habermas moves the locus
Dialectics, which tries to redefine dialectics for an era in of rationality from the autonomous subject to subjects
which “philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on in interaction. Rationality is a property not of indi-
because the moment to realize it was missed”. Negative viduals per se, but rather of structures of undistorted
dialectics expresses the idea of critical thought so con- communication. In this notion Habermas has overcome
ceived that the apparatus of domination cannot co-opt it. the ambiguous plight of the subject in critical theory. If
capitalistic technological society weakens the autonomy
Its central notion, long a focal one for Horkheimer and and rationality of the subject, it is not through the domi-
Adorno, suggests that the original sin of thought lies in its nation of the individual by the apparatus but through tech-
attempt to eliminate all that is other than thought, the at- nological rationality supplanting a describable rationality
tempt by the subject to devour the object, the striving for of communication. And, in his sketch of communicative
identity. This reduction makes thought the accomplice of ethics as the highest stage in the internal logic of the evo-
domination. Negative Dialectics rescues the “preponder- lution of ethical systems, Habermas hints at the source of
ance of the object”, not through a naive epistemological a new political practice that incorporates the imperatives
or metaphysical realism but through a thought based on of evolutionary rationality.
differentiation, paradox, and ruse: a “logic of disinte-
gration”. Adorno thoroughly criticizes Heidegger's fun-
damental ontology, which he thinks reintroduces idealis-
tic and identity-based concepts under the guise of having 3 Criticism of Frankfurt School
overcome the philosophical tradition.
theorists
Negative dialectics comprises a monument to the end of

3.1 Criticism of psychoanalytic catego- ten did contain such cultural critiques.[47][48] Recent criti-
rizations cism of the Frankfurt School by the libertarian CATO In-
stitute focused on the claim that culture has grown more
In an interview with Casey Blake and Christopher sophisticated and diverse as a consequence of free mar-
Phelps, historian Christopher Lasch criticized the Frank- kets and the availability of niche cultural text for niche
furt School’s initial tendencies towards “automatically” audiences.
rejecting opposing political criticisms on “psychiatric”
grounds:
3.2 Horkheimer and Adorno’s pessimism
An early criticism, originating from the left, argues that
Frankfurt School critical theory is nothing more than a
form of “bourgeois idealism” devoid of any actual rela-
tion to political practice, and is hence totally isolated from
the reality of any ongoing revolutionary movement. This
criticism was captured in Georg Lukács's phrase “Grand
Hotel Abyss” as a syndrome he imputed to the members
of the Frankfurt School:
Philosopher Karl Popper equally believed that the school
did not live up to Marx’s promise of a better future:
3.3 Habermas’s solutions: critical theory
“between past and future”
In 2006, Nikolas Kompridis (who undertook a post-
doctoral fellowship with Jürgen Habermas) published
new criticisms of Habermas’s approach to critical theory,
calling for a dramatic break with the proceduralist ethics
of communicative rationality. He writes:
In addition, he writes that:
In order to prevent that dissolution, Kompridis sug-
gests that critical theory should “reinvent” itself as a
“possibility-disclosing” enterprise, incorporating Heideg-
ger’s controversial insights into world disclosure and
drawing from the sources of normativity that he feels
were blocked from critical theory by its recent change of
paradigm. Calling for what Charles Taylor has named
a “new department” of reason,[45] with a possibility-
disclosing role that Kompridis calls "reflective disclo-
sure", Kompridis argues that critical theory must em-
brace its neglected German romantic inheritance and
once again imagine alternatives to existing social and po-
litical conditions, “if it is to have a future worthy of its
past.”[46]
3.4 Economic and media critiques
During the eighties, anti-authoritarian socialists in the
United Kingdom and New Zealand criticised the rigid
and determinist view of popular culture deployed within
the Frankfurt School theories of capitalist culture, which
seemed to preclude any prefigurative role for social cri-
tique within such work. They argued that EC Comics of-
7
[49][50]
4 Conspiracy theory
A notable 21st-century conspiracy theory regards the
Frankfurt School as the origin of a contemporary move-
ment in the political left to subvert traditional western
cultural norms, referred to as "Cultural Marxism"
by theory proponents. It advocates the idea that
multiculturalism and political correctness are products
of critical theory, which originated with the Frankfurt
School. The theory is associated with American con-
servative thinkers such as William Lind, Pat Buchanan
and Paul Weyrich, and has received institutional support
from the Free Congress Foundation.[51][52] A copy of Po-
litical Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the
FCF was included in a document titled 2083: A Euro-
pean Declaration of Independence by Norwegian terror-
ist Anders Behring Breivik, which was e-mailed to 1,003
addresses about 90 minutes before the 2011 bomb blast
in Oslo Breivik was responsible for.[53]
Although it became more widespread in the late 1990s
and 2000s, the theory originated with Michael Minni-
cino’s 1992 essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School
and 'Political Correctness’", published in Fidelio by
the Schiller Institute.[54][55][56] The Schiller Institute, a
branch of the LaRouche movement, further promoted the
idea in 1994.[57] The Minnicino article charges that the
Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts as a
form of Cultural pessimism, and played a role in shaping
the 1960s counterculture.[54] In 1999 Lind led the cre-
ation of an hour-long program, Political Correctness: The
Frankfurt School.[55] The documentary
"... spawned a number of condensed tex-
tual versions, which were reproduced on a
number of radical right-wing sites. These in
turn led to a welter of new videos now avail-
able on You Tube, which feature an odd cast of
pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same
line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all
the ills of modern American culture, from fem-
inism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and
gay rights to the decay of traditional educa-
tion and even environmentalism are ultimately
attributable to the insidious influence of the
members of the Institute for Social Research
who came to America in the 1930’s. The ori-
gins of “cultural Marxism” are traced back to
Lukács and Gramsci, but because they were not
actual émigrés, their role in the narrative is not
8 6 REFERENCES

as prominent.”[55] [4] Held, David (1980), p. 16

[5] Held, David (1980), p. 15

According to Chip Berlet, who specializes in the study
of extreme right-wing movements, the Cultural Marx- [6] Habermas, Jürgen. (1987). The Theory of Communicative
ism conspiracy theory found fertile ground with the Action. Third Edition, Vols. 1 & 2, Beacon Press.
development of the Tea Party movement in 2009,
[7] Habermas, Jürgen. (1990). Moral Consciousness and
with contributions published in the American Thinker
Communicative Action, MIT Press.
and WorldNetDaily highlighted by some Tea Party
websites.[58] [8] Habermas, Jürgen. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse
of Modernity. MIT Press.
Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin
has stated “Next to the global dimension of the Cultural [9] Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006). Critique and Disclosure:
Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and Critical Theory between Past and Future, MIT Press
original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist dis-
courses and pretend to be defenders of democracy.”[59] [10] Corradetti, Claudio (2011). “The Frankfurt School and
Critical Theory”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Originally published: October 21, 2011).

5 See also [11] “The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory”, Marxist In-
ternet Archive (Retrieved Sept. 12, 2009)
• Analytical Marxism [12] “The Origins of Critical Theory: An interview with Leo
Lowenthal” by Helmut Dubiel in Telos 49
• Birmingham School of Cultural Studies
[13] Held, David (1980), p. 38
• Critical Theory
[14] Geuss, Raymond (1981). The idea of a critical theory:
• Cultural Bolshevism Habermas and the Frankfurt school. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, p. 58
• Cultural studies
[15] Carr, Adrian (2000). “Critical theory and the manage-
• Fredric Jameson ment of change in organizations”. In: Journal of Organi-
• Gerhard Stapelfeldt zational Change Management, 13, 3, p. 208-220

• Leo Kofler [16] Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination. A History of

the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research
• Neo-Gramscianism 1923–1950. London: Heinemann, 1973, p. 21.

• New Marx Reading [17] Horkheimer, Max (1976). “Traditional and critical the-
ory”. In: Connerton, P (Eds), Critical Sociology: Selected
• Praxis School Readings, Penguin, Harmondsworth, p. 213

• Psychoanalytic sociology [18] Rasmussen, D. (1996). “Critical theory and philosophy”.

In: Rasmussen, D. (Eds), The Handbook of Critical The-
• Western Marxism ory, Blackwell, Oxford, p .18

• Zygmunt Bauman [19] Horkheimer, Max (1976), p. 221

• Georg Simmel [20] Bohman, J (1996). “Critical theory and democracy”. In:
Rasmussen, D. (Eds), The Handbook of Critical Theory,
• Karl Manheim Blackwell, Oxford, p. 190

[21] Horkheimer, Max (1976), p. 219 (see also p. 224)

6 References
[1] Held, David (1980). Introduction to critical theory:
Horkheimer to Habermas. University of California Press,
p. 14
[2] Finlayson, James Gordon. (2005). Habermas: a very
short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.1
[22] dialectic. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Re-
trieved December 19, 2009, from Encyclopædia Bri-
tannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/
topic/161174/dialectic
[23] Little, D. (2007). “Philosophy of History”, The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Sun Feb 18, 2007), http://
plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#HegHis

[3] “Frankfurt School”. (2009). In Encyclopædia Bri- [24] “When philosophy paints its grey on grey, then has a shape
tannica. Cited from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: of life grown old. (...) The owl of Minerva spreads its
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/217277/ wings only with the falling of the dusk” – Hegel, G. W. F.
Frankfurt-School (Retrieved December 19, 2009) (1821). Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, p.13

[25] “Hegel’s philosophy, and in particular his political philos-
ophy, 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 po-
litical philosophy—problems and perspectives: a collection
of new essays, CUP Archive. Google Print, p.200
[26] Karl Marx (1859), Preface to Das Kapital: Kritik der poli-
tischen Ökonomie.
[27] Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies. London:
Verso. (esp. pp. 76–93)
[28] Jonathan Wolff, Ph.D. (ed.). “Karl Marx”. Stanford En-
cyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford. Retrieved 2009-09-
17.
[29] Seiler, Robert M. “Human Communication in the Critical
Theory Tradition”, University of Calgary, Online Publi-
cation
[30] Bernstein, J. M. (1994) The Frankfurt School: critical as-
sessments, Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, p. 208 (See also
pp. 199–202)
[31] Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections on a
Damaged Life, Verso (2006), pp. 15–16.
[32] Adorno, Theodor W. (2006), p. 247.
[33] Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. (2002). Dialectic
of Enlightenment. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, p. 242.
[34] “Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimer’s
circle to think through political disappointments at the ab-
sence of revolution in the West, the development of Stal-
inism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism in Ger-
many. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prog-
noses, but without breaking Marxist intentions” – Haber-
mas, Jürgen. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of
Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Trans. Frederick Lawrence.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 116.
See also: Dubiel, Helmut. (1985). Theory and Politics:
Studies in the Development of Critical Theory. Trans. Ben-
jamin Gregg. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.
[35] "[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 man-
aging directors executes as results (which are more oblig-
atory than the blindest price-mechanisms) the old law of
value and hence the destiny of capitalism.” – Horkheimer,
Max and Theodor Adorno. (2002). Dialectic of Enlight-
enment, p. 38.
[36] Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p. 256
[37] 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.
[38] Blake, Casey and Christopher Phelps. (1994). “History as
social criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch” –
Journal of American History 80, no.4 (March) (p.1310-
1332)
9
[39] Lukács, Georg. (1971). The Theory of the Novel. MIT
Press, p.22
[40] Karl R. Popper: Addendum 1974: The Frankfurt School.
in: The Myth of the Framework. London New York 1994,
p. 80
[41] Habermas, Jürgen (1987), The Philosophical Discourse of
Modernity, MIT Press, 1987. p. 301
[42] Habermas, Jürgen (1987), p. 42
[43] Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), pp.23–24
[44] Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p.25
[45] Charles Taylor, Philosophical Arguments pp. 12, 15.
[46] Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p.xi
[47] Martin Barker: A Haunt of Fears: The Strange History
of the British Horror Comics Campaign: London: Pluto
Press: 1984
[48] Roy Shuker, Roger Openshaw and Janet Soler: Youth, Me-
dia and Moral Panic: From Hooligans to Video Nasties:
Palmerston North: Massey University Department of Ed-
ucation: 1990
[49] Cowen, Tyler (1998) “Is Our Culture in Decline?" Cato
Policy Report, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/
v20n5/culture.pdf
[50] Radoff, Jon (2010) “The Attack on Imagination,” http://
radoff.com/blog/2010/05/27/attack-imagination/
[51] Berkowitz, Bill (2003), “Reframing the Enemy: 'Cultural
Marxism', a Conspiracy Theory with an Anti-Semitic
Twist, Is Being Pushed by Much of the American Right.”
Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center, Sum-
mer. http://web.archive.org/web/20040207095318/http:
//www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=
53&printable=1
[52] Lind, William S. “What is Cultural Marxism?". Maryland
Thursday Meeting. Retrieved 9 April 2015.
[53] Taylor, Matthew (27 July 2011). “Breivik sent 'mani-
festo' to 250 UK contacts hours before Norway killings”.
Guardian. Guardian UK. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
[54] “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correct-
ness’", Schiller Institute
[55] Jay, Martin (2010), "Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment:
The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe".
Salmagundi (Fall 2010-Winter 2011, 168–169): 30–40.
[56] Jay (2010) notes that Daniel Estulin’s book cites this es-
say and that the Free Congress Foundation’s program was
inspired by it.
[57] Michael Minnicino (1994), Freud and the Frankfurt
School (Schiller Institute 1994), part of “Solving the Para-
dox of Current World History”, a conference report pub-
lished in Executive Intelligence Review
10 8 EXTERNAL LINKS

[58] Berlet, Chip (July 2012). “Collectivists, Communists, La-
bor Bosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing
Populist Counter-Subversion Panic”. Critical Sociology 38
(4): 565–587. doi:10.1177/0896920511434750.
[59] Jamin, Jérôme (2014). “Cultural Marxism and the Rad-
ical Right”. In Shekhovtsov, A.; Jackson, P. The Post-
War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of
Hate. The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special
Relationship of Hate (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
pp. 84–103. doi:10.1057/9781137396211.0009. ISBN
978-1-137-39619-8. Retrieved 18 January 2015.
• Kompridis, Nikolas. Critique and Disclosure: Crit-
ical Theory between Past and Future. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2006.
• Postone, Moishe. Time, Labor, and Social Dom-
ination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical The-
ory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press,
1993.
• Schwartz, Frederic J. Blind Spots: Critical Theory
and the History of Art in Twentieth-Century Ger-
many. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2005.

7 Further reading • Shapiro, Jeremy J. “The Critical Theory of Frank-

• Arato, Andrew and Eike Gebhardt, Eds. The Essen-
tial Frankfurt School Reader. New York: Contin-
uum, 1982.
• Bernstein, Jay. Ed. The Frankfurt School: Critical
Assessments. New York: Routledge, 1994. (in six
volumes).
• Benhabib, Seyla. Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A
Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
furt”. Times Literary Supplement 3 (October 4,
1974) 787.
• Scheuerman, William E. Frankfurt School Perspec-
tives on Globalization, Democracy, and the Law. 3rd
ed. New York: Routledge, 2008.
• Wiggershaus, Rolf. The Frankfurt School: Its His-
tory, Theories and Political Significance. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
• Wheatland, Thomas. The Frankfurt School in Exile.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.

• Bottomore, Tom. The Frankfurt School and its Crit-

ics. New York: Routledge, 2002. 8 External links
• Bronner, Stephen Eric and Douglas MacKay Kell-
ner, Eds. Critical Theory and Society: A Reader. • Official website of the Institute for Social Research
New York: Routledge, 1989. at the University of Frankfurt

• “Critical Theory” on Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi-

• Brosio, Richard A. The Frankfurt School: An Anal-
losophy
ysis of the Contradictions and Crises of Liberal Cap-
italist Societies. 1980. • The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory entry in
the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Crone, Michael (ed.): Vertreter der Frankfurter
Schule in den Hörfunkprogrammen 1950–1992. • The Frankfurt School on the Marxists Internet
Hessischer Rundfunk, Frankfurt am Main 1992. Archive
(bibliography)
• BBC Radio 4 Audio documentary “In our time: the
• Friedman, George. The Political Philosophy of the Frankfurt School”
Frankfurt School. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1981.

• Held, David. Introduction to Critical Theory:

Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1980.

• Gerhardt, Christina. “Frankfurt School. The In-

ternational Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest,
1500 to the Present. 8 vols. Ed. Immanuel Ness.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009. 12-13.

• Jay, Martin. The Dialectical Imagination: A History

of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social
Research 1923–1950. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1996.
 11

9 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

9.1 Text
• Frankfurt School Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School?oldid=669972955 Contributors: Ed Poor, Shii, Kurt Jansson,
FvdP, R Lowry, Atlan, Earth, Gdarin, 172, Ahoerstemeier, Snoyes, Angela, Jimmer, Darkwind, Poor Yorick, Susurrus, Jacquerie27,
JASpencer, Pedant17, Jjshapiro, Taxman, Rbellin, Lunchboxhero, Fito, Robbot, Sunray, David Gerard, Stirling Newberry, Pmerriam,
Gtrmp, Abigail-II, Lupin, Ferkelparade, DO'Neil, Pteron, Clossius, Mboverload, Bobblewik, Bacchiad, Vadmium, Formeruser-81, Piotrus,
Hans castorp81~enwiki, Ot, Phil Sandifer, Magadan, Tubedogg, Yossarian, Atemperman, Herschelkrustofsky, Margr8, Adashiel, Lu-
cidish, Jayjg, Buffyg, Varada, A-giau, RossPatterson, Blanchette, Guanabot, Pmsyyz, Florian Blaschke, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, User2004,
Mani1, Bender235, El C, Aude, Mqduck, Jpgordon, Robotje, HasharBot~enwiki, Hipocrite, Dark Shikari, Wtmitchell, Benson85, Huerlisi,
Isfisk, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, Woohookitty, Bkwillwm, Qwertyus, Porcher, Georgelazenby, Olessi, Ffaarr, Chobot, DaGizza, YurikBot, Jlitt-
let, RussBot, Rakkar, Nobs01, Pigman, Hydrargyrum, Jrideout, M3taphysical, Bota47, PanchoS, Zzuuzz, Nikkimaria, Curpsbot-unicodify,
Dean Sayers, Rickkuhn, Infinity0, Intangible, Veinor, SmackBot, DuncanBCS, Stephensuleeman, Piccadilly, Jyoshimi, David Ludwig,
Jprg1966, MartinPoulter, Apeloverage, Tamfang, PiMaster3, Millipede, Zdravko mk, NickPenguin, Navidnak, Bejnar, Clicketyclack,
Will Beback, SashatoBot, Franklin Dmitryev, Kingfish, JohnI, Bo99, DGtal, Dontworry, Iridescent, Amalas, Bobfrombrockley, Calibanu,
WeggeBot, Gregbard, Yaris678, Cydebot, Stebbins, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Doug Weller, DumbBOT, Thijs!bot, Barticus88, Bot-maru,
Itsmejudith, RoboServien, Wordforge, Emeraldcityserendipity, JAnDbot, Athkalani~enwiki, JenLouise, MelanieN, Bowieno, JamesBWat-
son, EagleFan, JaGa, Coffeepusher, CommonsDelinker, Nono64, Fconaway, Gaming4JC, Henry Cassini, DD2K, Ian.thomson, Tarinth,
Jeff G., AlnoktaBOT, Tomsega, Steven J. Anderson, Wikiisawesome, Alaric the Goth, The Devil’s Advocate, SieBot, Agbook, Criti-
caltheoryforum, Smilo Don, SummerWithMorons, Meffo, Morgan gibson87, TheOldJacobite, Niceguyedc, Sandyenglish, Yorkshirian,
Rhododendrites, Hans Adler, 1ForTheMoney, DerBorg, Mszajewski, Jax 0677, Pfhorrest, Loganmac, Piratejosh85, WikHead, Addbot,
CarsracBot, Busterbarker2008, AndersBot, Woland1234, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Sindinero, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, DemocraticLuntz,
Ump111, DarthChrist, Bartleby08, Joeleisenhower, Xqbot, XZeroBot, Srich32977, J04n, Omnipaedista, Carrite, Rymmen, T@Di, Win-
terst, RedBot, Piero79, Reconsider the static, Jonkerz, Triffidy, Lotje, Dinamik-bot, Vrenator, TheMesquito, Dzieglersf, Walkinxyz, 15Xin,
Beyond My Ken, Alfons2, Slon02, Ofrahod, EmausBot, ImprovingWiki, Dewritech, RenamedUser01302013, Wikipelli, Dnm, Tulandro,
Wucherpfennig, Jacobisq, Ubikwit, Phronetic, Borreby, Helpsome, ClueBot NG, Rsupposes, RichLK, Hupaleju, ScottSteiner, Gast2011,
Helpful Pixie Bot, Joe Bodacious, Jeraphine Gryphon, Ymblanter, ArtifexMayhem, OldSquiffyBat, Wodrow, RGloucester, Shaun, Eb7473,
Ekren, Cerabot~enwiki, LonelyBoy2012, CsDix, Christina Gerhardt, Dustin V. S., Flat Out, UltimateBoss, ApeMixDiversity, Fuzzy mon-
goose, Aubreybardo, Nizolan, RudiLefkowitz, Ryubyss, Conchpotters, Pretendus, 09I500, Mirai19, Jobrot, Ever Jobim, Corsairio, Coun-
terCritic, Enlightened editor, SecuringAFuture14W, Supdiop, Nøkkenbuer, KasparBot, Tim.Fosner, Second Dark, Gnisum, RR420 and
Anonymous: 159

9.2 Images
• File:AdornoHorkheimerHabermasbyJeremyJShapiro2.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/
AdornoHorkheimerHabermasbyJeremyJShapiro2.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Photograph taken in April 1964 by Jeremy
J. Shapiro Original artist: Jeremy J. Shapiro. Original uploader was Jjshapiro at en.wikipedia
• File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work, based off of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk · contribs)
• File:Marx_and_Engels.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Marx_and_Engels.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Σ at en.wikipedia
• File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0
Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
• File:Red_flag_II.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Red_flag_II.svg License: CC BY 2.5 Contributors:
? Original artist: ?
• File:Socrates.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Socrates.png License: Public domain Contributors:
Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: The original uploader was Magnus Manske at English Wikipedia Later versions
were uploaded by Optimager at en.wikipedia.
• File:Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg
License: Public domain Contributors: self-made; based on Image:Hammer and sickle.svg by Zscout370 Original artist: Rocket000

9.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0