The phrase critical theory is used in two ways. In its narrow sense it names a tradition of social philosophy that grew out of a research center in Frankfurt, Germany, usually called the Frankfurt School. In a broader sense, people now use “critical theory” for many approaches in the humanities, social sciences and law that examine how power shapes society and knowledge. This course starts with the narrow sense, then looks at how the broader uses grew up, and ends with the main criticisms of the whole tradition.

The Institute for Social Research

The Institute for Social Research was founded in Frankfurt in 1923, funded by Felix Weil, the son of a wealthy grain merchant who was sympathetic to Marxism. It was attached to the University of Frankfurt but had its own money, which gave it unusual independence. Its first director, Carl Grünberg, focused on the history of the labor movement. In 1930 the philosopher Max Horkheimer became director and changed its course: he wanted philosophers, economists, psychologists and sociologists to work together on one large question, how society as a whole hangs together and why it changes or fails to change.

Most of the Institute's members were Jewish and on the political left. When the Nazis took power in 1933, the Institute was closed and its members fled. After a short stay in Geneva, the Institute moved in 1934 to New York, where it was affiliated with Columbia University. Horkheimer and his close collaborator Theodor W. Adorno returned to Frankfurt after the war, and the Institute reopened there in the early 1950s. The label “Frankfurt School” came into common use only later, in the 1960s.

Traditional and critical theory

In 1937 Horkheimer published an essay, “Traditional and Critical Theory,” that gave the tradition its name. His argument, in paraphrase, ran like this.

Traditional theory is the model of knowledge found in the natural sciences and in much social science. The researcher stands outside the subject as a neutral observer, gathers facts, builds general laws and tests them. The goal is accurate description and prediction. Horkheimer did not say this was worthless. His complaint was that traditional theory treats its own position as if it floated above society, when in fact what researchers study, how they study it and what counts as a useful result are all shaped by the society around them.

Critical theory, by contrast, is aware of where it stands. It sees the theorist as part of the society being studied. It asks not only how society works but whether its arrangements are rational and just, and whom they serve. And it has a practical aim: to help free people from conditions that dominate them. For Horkheimer, a theory is critical when it treats existing social arrangements as the products of human action, which could be made otherwise, rather than as facts of nature.

Three features to remember

• Explanatory: it tries to explain what is wrong with present society, using evidence and argument.
• Normative: it judges society against standards such as freedom, reason and justice.
• Practical: it aims to help the people affected understand and change their situation.

Why it matters

Critical theory has influenced sociology, philosophy, media studies, law and political movements. It is also controversial, and in recent years the term itself has become a political flashpoint. Knowing what the original thinkers actually argued, and what their critics said in reply, is the best way to judge those debates for yourself. This course presents each idea as its defenders would, then sets out the strongest objections.

Worked example: two studies of unemployment

Imagine two researchers studying unemployment in an industrial town after its largest factory closes.

The first follows the model Horkheimer called traditional theory. She gathers data on how many people lost jobs, their ages, education and savings, and how long each takes to find new work. She finds that older workers with fewer years of schooling stay unemployed longest, and she builds a model that predicts who will struggle. Her work is careful and useful: it can guide retraining programs and benefits.

The second researcher takes a critical approach. He uses the same data but asks further questions. Why is a whole town's livelihood tied to one company's investment decisions, made far away? Why do many laid-off workers describe their situation as personal failure, when the cause was a decision they had no part in? Whose interests are served when unemployment is treated as a problem of individual skills rather than of how the economy is organized? He shares his findings with local unions and community groups, hoping they will see their situation as something that could be changed through collective action.

A defender of traditional theory might object that the second researcher has brought his values into his research and may find what he expected to find. A critical theorist would reply that the first researcher also made value choices, such as which questions counted as worth asking, but left them unexamined. Notice that the two approaches can use the same facts. The difference lies in what questions are asked, and what the research is for.