Marcuse Today: An Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 026327642110514
Author(s):  
Douglas Kellner ◽  
Rainer Winter

This contribution serves as an invitation to a renewed exploration of Herbert Marcuse’s critical theory. It discloses his continued relevance for critical social theory and politics in the contemporary moment and why Marcuse should not be condemned to the dustbin of history but should be appropriated and developed in our contemporary conditions in which crises are multiplying.

2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (151) ◽  
pp. 255-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Kappeler

In its first part, the article deals with Michel Foucaults "discourse analysis", as developed in his "Archaeology of knowledge". The second part considers the concept of discourse in relation to Foucaults "analytic of power" and to a critical theory of society inspired by Karl Marx, especially Louis Althussers notion of ideology. Thus, on the one hand, some propositions for a methodology of discourse analysis are being made, and, on the other hand, its position within a project of critical social theory is discussed.


Acorn ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-28
Author(s):  
Andrew Fiala ◽  

Pacifism is often painted into a corner as an absolute rejection of all violence and war. Such a dogmatic and negative formulation of pacifism does leave us with pacifism as a morally problematic position. But pacifism is not best understood as a negative claim. Nor is pacifism best understood as a singular or monistic concept. Rather, there is a “pacifist tradition” that is grounded in an affirmative claim about the importance of nonviolence, love, community building, and peaceful conflict resolution. This more positive conception of pacifism aims to transform social and political life. When understood in this way, pacifism is a robust and useful critical social theory. This paper explores the philosophy of pacifism in an attempt to reconceptualize pacifism as a tradition of normative critical theory. The paper argues that pacifism ought to be understood on analogy with other critical theories—such as feminism; that pacifism should be understood in terms of the “pacifist tradition”—along lines familiar from interpretations of the “just war tradition”; and that pacifism should be seen as offering interesting themes and ideas that are worthy of philosophical attention.


1982 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Forester

ABSTRACTPolicy analysis may benefit from specific conceptual contributions derived from Jurgen Habermas's critical social theory. In particular, Aaron Wildavsky's emphasis on the policy analyst's fostering of social and political ‘interactions’ can be given concrete empirical content derived from the critical theorist's account of social and communicative action. In addition, the critical theorist's distinction between action and ‘learning’ extends and sharpens Wildavsky's and Lindblom's account of policy outcomes. Once obstacles to social and political learning are distinguished from ordinary constraints upon citizens' action, policy analysis research (as formulated by Wildavsky and Lindblom) can be more concretely specified and then understood also and essentially to involve fundamental normative judgments of the legitimacy of policy-fostered ‘interactions’.


2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-193
Author(s):  
Chris O’Kane

AbstractThis review-essay assays Werner Bonefeld’s timely attempt to unite contemporary critical theory with the critique of political economy. I begin by contextualising Bonefeld’s contribution in relation to the dearth of material on this issue in contemporary anglophone critical theory. I then discuss the anglophone reception of Adornian critical theory and provide an overview of the development of the subterranean critical-theoretical interpretations of the critique of political economy that Adorno influenced which have been occluded by the former. This sets up my discussion of how Bonefeld has taken up, criticised and developed this subterranean strand in critical theory and the critique of political economy. I close with some criticisms of how Bonefeld addresses the relationship between critical theory and the critique of political economy and point toward several areas of further investigation that are intended to extend this approach to the contemporary critical theory of society.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Umar Sholahudin

This article aims to examine the critical theory of the Fraknfurt school, especially those related to its history, concepts, assumptions, and contributions. Historically-geneologically, critical theory was born from the womb of Marxist theory. Although born from the womb of Marxist theory, critical theory is not too satisfied with the analysis of the Marxians who are considered too mechanistic economic determinism in seeing the social reality of Western capitalist society. According to critical theory, the Marxian analysis in viewing and analyzing the inequality of the reality of capitalist society in Europe is too reductionist, that is, it is the economic factor (structure) that determines socio-economic inequality or class conflict in a capitalist society. The critical theory developed by the people who call themselves Neo-Maxians, exists to further develop the classical Marxian analysis, which rests not only on economic factors, but also on other socio-economic factors. The Frankfurt school of critical social theory thought services pioneered by Horkheimer, however, has provided a relatively new (though not very new) theoretical perspective in seeing, understanding and analyzing social reality. This critical social theory perspective has contributed significantly to the development of social theory. One of them is that critical theory has contributed to the development of critical and emancipatory awareness of human practice in seeing social realities that are full of inequality and injustice.Keyword : Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, History, Development of Social Theory


2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-038
Author(s):  
Algimantas Valantiejus

Santrauka. Šio straipsnio paskirtis – atnaujinti diskusiją dėl teorinės struktūros sandaros, kurią suda­ro ir analitiniai, ir normatyviniai elementai. Pagrindinis uždavinys – analitiškumo ir normatyviškumo komponentų kintančioje kritinės socialinės teorijos sandaroje identifikavimas ir metodologinių požiūrių į šių komponentų tarpusavio santykį šiuolaikinėse praktikos teorijose analizė. Siekiama atsakyti į klausimą, kodėl kritikos sąvoka šiuolaikinėse praktikos teorijose keičiama reflektyvumo sąvoka. Straipsnyje, remiantis kritinių teoretikų nuorodomis ir jas interpretuojant, analizuojamos „nekalto“ (Wittgensteino Filosofinių tyrinėjimų 308 fragmente aptariama prasme) terminologinio pakeitimo euristinės implikacijos šių dienų kritinėms socialinėms teorijoms, kurios skiriamos nuo ankstyvosios Frankfurto kritinės teorijos. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: kritika, reflektyvumas, kritinė teorija, kritinė socialinė teorija, praktikos teo­rija. Key words: critique, reflexivity, critical theory, critical social theory, practice theory. ABSTRACT ON THE QUESTION OF CRITICAL THEORY TODAY The task of this article is to renew the discussion about the theoretical structure which includes both analytical and normative elements. The main theoretical problem analyzed in the article is the identifi­cation of analytical and normative elements in the structure of critical social theory and the analysis of the relationship between these elements in contemporary practice theories. The article seeks to answer the ques­tion why the concept of critique in contemporary practice theories is changed by the concept of reflexivity. The article aims to emphasize the implications of this „innocent“ terminological change for contemporary critical social theories, distinguished from early Critical Theory of Frankfurt School.


2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris O’Kane

AbstractThis introduction outlines the importance that Hans-Georg Backhaus’s transcript of Adorno’s 1962 seminar on ‘Marx and the Basic Concepts of Sociological Theory’ has for shedding light on the relationship between Adorno’s critical theory and the critique of political economy. PartIsignals the importance of the seminar by assaying the Anglophone scholarship on Adorno. PartIIcontextualises the seminar in the development of his thought. PartsIIIandIVfocus on what the transcript tells us about Adorno’s interpretation of Marx and the importance this interpretation held for Adorno’s critical social theory. PartVpoints to the influence this interpretation of the critique of political economy had on the formation of the New German Reading of Marx.


Dialogue ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-362
Author(s):  
Matthias Fritsch

Joseph Heath's Communicative Action and Rational Choice may be read as a critical commentary upon Habermas's critical social theory, but it may also be read as merely using the latter as “scaffolding” (p. 10) for the presentation of Heath's own version of critical theory. In what follows, I will focus on the second option and thus largely ignore the exegetical question to what extent Heath provides a fair reading of Habermas. This does not mean, however, that I will not make comparative judgements. On the contrary, my overall claim will be that Heath's new critical theory is more functionalist, and. partly as a result, less critical than Habermas's. Since lack of space does not permit me to argue this in accordance with the standards of detail that Heath's own book generally observes, my procedure may be justified by the attempt to provoke a clarificatory response from Heath.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document