Critical versus System’s Theory – Aspects in German Sociological Theory

begins: September, 2nd 2003, Room 114, Berkey Hall, Department for Sociology, MSU

The planned course will introduce the social theoretical conceptions of the main proponents of the so called Frankfurt School of Critical Theory Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno and Jürgen Habermas, and of Niklas Luhmann and some of his pupils as opponents to the Frankfurtians and as proponents of a Theory of Social Systems. The course will try to disentangle the interwoven argumentations of these theoreticians, will compare them and relate them to each other and other social theoreticians and will try to visualize a certain historic development of this argumentations by relating them to the socio-historic context in which they were formulated. The course thus intends to draw something like a social history of German (or European) sociological theory throughout the 20^th century.

The course will be held in form of a lecture leaving however considerable time for discussions as well assuming that some of the complex matter the course will deal with is easier adopted dialogically than via a monologue.

Content and problem description

Sociological theory at the beginning of the 21^th century appears split into a wide range of fractions and schools of which at least two are rooted in Germany. One is the so called Frankfurt School of Critical Theory with its nowadays probably best known representative Jürgen Habermas whose Theory of Communicative Action, though mitigating a couple of normative Marxist implications of his predecessors, still poses a lasting source of opposition to the advocates of the Theory of Social Systems, the second well known German school of sociological thought whose meanwhile probably best known representative was the late social theoretician Niklas Luhmann.

Although the debates between these two theoretical schools are legend today, both conceptions rest on the same theoretical supposition stating that society can only be described internally, within itself, and that therefore straightforward “objective” or “positivistic” sociological activities necessarily pose severe fundamental methodological problems: sociologists never operate outside or independently of society. That’s why they are not able to “put their subject in front of themselves” in order to observe it “objectively”. Sociologists are always and necessarily part of society and therefore they are always involved as well into the observation of it as into the phenomenon they observe. Max Horkheimer, the founding father of the Frankfurt School of social research, expressed this by emphasizing a “double historicity” of social phenomenons counteracting every endeavor to analytically separate the appearance of a subject from the observer’s reception of the subject. From this Horkheimer concluded that sociologists can never require a distanced uncritical position towards society as sociology is by its own means a critical activity. His program of a Critical Theory thus centered on a profound critique of the proceedings and developments of modern society.

Emphasizing exactly the same point, Niklas Luhmann however came to a completely different conclusion half a century later. Exactly because of the involvement of the observer into his subject, he stated, the observer is constantly influencing and thus perturbing his subject by observing it. As a consequence an imperturbable standpoint on which a critique of social proceedings and developments could be steadily based on is not to be found. Especially modern societies with their obvious plurality of perspectives do not legitimize a privileged perspective of any kind any more. Contemporary sociologists thus should be able to see that their specific perspective on the world is always just one out of many and that the “contingency” of modern conditions deprives a Critical Theory as the Frankfurtians propose it of its legitimacy. Sociology as part of an “autopoietically closed scientific subsystem” of modern society has to constrain itself to observe and to describe society “as if it would be from outside” leaving the critique of its proceedings to different subsystems of society.

 (non obligatory) Literature on the the two schools:

·   Adorno, Theodor W. (1973), Negative Dialectics, translated by E. B. Ashton. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

·   Adorno, T. (1974), Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life, translated by E. F. N. Jephcott. London: Verso.

·   Adorno, T. (1991), Notes to Literature, Vol. 1, translated by Shierry Weber Nicholsen. New York: Columbia University Press.

·   Adorno, T. (1994), The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in Culture, edited with an introduction by Stephen Crook. London: Routledge.

·   Adorno, T. (1997), Aesthetic Theory, translated and edited by Robert Hullot–Kentor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

·   Adorno, Theodor W., / Max Horkheimer (1979), Dialectic of Enlightenment, translated by John Cumming. London: Verso.

·   Anderson, Perry (1976), Considerations on Western Marxism. London: New Left Books.

·   Arato, Andrew, and Eike Gebhardt (1982), The Essential Frankfurt School Reader. New York: Continuum.

·   Benhabib, Seyla (1986), Critique, Norm and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

·   Benhabib, Seyla, and Maurizio Passerin d’Entrèves (eds.) (1996), Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

·   Benhabib, Seyla, Wolfgang Bonß, and John McCole (eds.) (1993), On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

·   Bernstein, Jay M. (1994), Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London: Routledge.

·   Bonß, Wolfgang (1993), “The Program of Interdisciplinary Materialism and the Beginnings of Critical Theory,” in Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonß, and John McCole (eds.), On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 99–125.

·   Bottomore, Tom (1984), The Frankfurt School. London: Ellis Horwood and Tavistock.

·   Brodersen, Momme (1996), Walter Benjamin: A Biography, translated by Malcolm R. Green and Ingrida Ligers, edited by Martina Dervis. London: Verso.

·   Bronner, Stephen Eric (1994), Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists. Oxford: Blackwell.

·  Brunkhorst, Hauke (1993), “Dialectical Positivism of Happiness: Horkheimer’s Materialist Deconstruction of Philosophy,” in Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonß and John McCole (eds.), On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 67–98.

·   Buck–Morss, Susan (1977), The Origins of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and the Frankfurt Institute. New York: Free Press.

·   Calhoun, Craig (1995), Critical Social Theory: Culture, History and the Challenge of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.

·   Cooke, Maeve (1994), Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

·   Dubiel, Helmut (1983), “Farewell to Critical Theory?” Praxis International Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 121–137.

·   Dubiel (1985), Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory, translated by Benjamin Gregg. Cambridge: MIT Press.

·   Feenberg, Andrew (1991), Critical Theory of Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

·   Giddens, Anthony (1985), The Nation–State and Violence: Volume Two of A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Giddens (1990), “Jürgen Habermas,” in Quentin Skinner (ed.), The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Canto, pp. 121–139.

·  Haacke, Jürgen (1996), “Theory and Praxis in International Relations: Habermas, Self–Reflection, Rational Argumentation,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 255–289.

·   Habermas, Jürgen (1970), Towards a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.

·   Habermas, J. (1976), Legitimation Crisis, translated by Thomas McCarthy. London: Heinemann.

·  Habermas, J. (1979), Communication and the Evolution of Society, translated by Thomas McCarthy. London: Heinemann.

·   Habermas, J. (1980), “The Inimitable Zeitschrift für Socialforschung: How Horkheimer Took Advantage of a Historically Oppressive Hour,” translated by David J. Parent, Telos Vol. 45 (Fall), pp. 114–121.

·   Habermas, J. (1981), “Modernity Versus Postmodernity,” New German Critique Vol. 22, pp. 3–14.

·  Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, translated by Thomas McCarthy. London: Heinemann.

·   Habermas, J. (1986a), Theory and Practice, translated by John Viertel. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Habermas, J. (1986b), Knowledge and Human Interests, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Habermas, J. (1987), The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, translated by Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Habermas, J. (1991), The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, translated by Frederick G. Lawrence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

·   Habermas, J. (1992a), “A Ggeneration Apart from Adorno,” interview with J. Früchtl translated by James Swindal, Philosophy and Social Criticism Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 119–124.

·   Habermas, J. (1992b), Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas, edited and introduced by Peter Dews. London: Verso.

·   Habermas, J. (1993a), “Notes on the Developmental History of Horkheimer’s Work,” Theory, Culture and Society Vol. 10, pp. 61–77.

·   Habermas, J. (1993b), “The Second Life–Fiction of the Federal Republic: We Have Become ‘Normal’ Again,” New Left Review No. 197 (January–February), pp. 58–66.

·   Habermas, J. (1994), The Past as Future, interview by Michael Haller, translated and edited by Max Pensky. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, translated by William Rehg. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Habermas, J. (1998) On the Pragmatics of Communication (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought) MIT Press

·   Habermas J. (1998) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought) MIT Press; Reprint edition

·   Habermas J. (2000) The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought) MIT Press; Reprint edition

·   Habermas J. (2001) The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought) MIT Press.

·   Habermas J. (2003) The Future of Human Nature, Polity Pr; (April 2003)

·   Habermas J. (2002) Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God and Modernity (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought) MIT Press

·   Habermas J. (2001) The Liberating Power of Symbols: Philosophical Essays (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought) MIT Press

·   Held David (1980), Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Held D. (1982), “Critical Theory and Political Transformation,” Media, Culture and Society Vol. 4, pp. 153–160.

·   Hoffman, Mark (1987), “Critical Theory and the Inter–Paradigm Debate,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 232–249.

·   Hoffman M. (1989), “Critical Theory and the Inter–Paradigm Debate,” in Hugh C. Dyer and Leon Mangasarian (eds.), The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art. London: Macmillan, pp. 60–86.

·   Hohendahl, Peter Uwe (1991), Reappraisals: Shifting Alignments in Postwar Critical Theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

·   Hohendahl P.U. (1992a), “Adorno Criticism Today,” New German Critique No. 56 (Spring– Summer), pp. 3–15.

·   Hohendahl P.U. (1992b), “The Displaced Intellectual? Adorno’s American Years Revisited,” New German Critique No. 56 (Spring–Summer), pp. 76–100.

·   Hohendahl P.U. (1995), Prismatic Thought: Theodor W. Adorno. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

·   Holub, Robert C. (1991), Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. London: Routledge.

·   Honneth, Axel (1982), “Work and Instrumental Action,” New German Critique No. 25, pp. 31–54.

·   Honneth (1993), “Max Horkheimer and the Sociological Deficit of Critical Theory,” translated by Kenneth Baynes, in Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonß, and John McCole (eds.) (1993), On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 187–214.

·   Honneth (1994), “The Social Dynamics of Disrespect: On the Location of Critical Theory Today,” translated by John Farrell, Constellations Vol. 1, No. 2 (October), pp. 255–269.

·   Honneth, Axel, and Hans Joas (1991), Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action, translated by Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Horkheimer, Max (1972), Critical Theory: Selected Essays, translated by Matthew J. O’Connell and others. New York: Seabury Press.

·   Horkheimer, M (1974), Eclipse of Reason. New York: Continuum.

·   Horkheimer, M (1978), Dawn and Decline: Notes 1926–1931 and 1950–1969, translated by Michael Shaw. New York: Seabury Press.

·   Horkheimer, M (1993), Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings, translated by G. Frederick Hunter, Matthew S. Kramer, and John Torpey. Cambridge: MIT Press.

·   Horkheimer, M (1989) Notes on Science and the Crisis; in: Bronner, Stephen Eric / Kellner, Douglas MacKay (ed.) Critical Theory and Society: A Reader. New York: Routledge; 1989, 52-57.

·   Horkheimer, M (1989) The State of Contemporary Social Philosophy and the Tasks of an
Institute for Social Research; in: Bronner, Stephen Eric / Kellner, Douglas MacKay (ed.) Critical Theory and Society: A Reader. New York: Routledge;
1989. 25-36.

·   Jameson, Frederic (1971), Marxism and Form: Twentieth Century Dialectical Theories of Literature. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

·   Jameson (1990), Late Marxism: Adorno, or, the Persistence of the Dialectic. London: Verso.

·   Jay, Martin (1973), The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

·   Jay, M (1982), “Misrepresentations of the Frankfurt School,” Survey 26 Vol. 2 (Summer), pp. 131–141.

·   Jay, M (1984), Adorno. London: Fontana.

·   Kellner, Douglas (1984), Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. London: Macmillan.

·   Kellner, D (1989), Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Kellner, D (1993), “Critical Theory Today: Revisiting the Classics,” Theory, Culture and Society Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 43–60.

·   Kellner, Douglas / Rick Roderick (1981), “Recent Literature on Critical Theory,” New German Critique Vol. 23, pp. 141–170.

·   Luhmann, Niklas (1979). Trust and Power, Chichester (Wiley)

·   Luhmann, N. (1982). The differentiation of society. New York: Columbia University Press.

·   Luhmann, N. (1984). Religious dogmatics and the evolution of societies. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.

·   Luhmann, N. (1985). A Sociological Theory of Law, London (Routledge)

·   Luhmann, N. (1986) Love as Passion, Cambridge (Polity Press)

·   Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Columbia University Press.

·   Luhmann, N. (1990) Political Theory in the Welfare State, Berlin, de Gruyter.

·   Luhmann, N. (1992). What is communication? Communication Theory, 2, pp. 251-258.

·   Luhmann, N. (1993). Deconstruction as second-order observing. New Literary History, 24(4), pp. 763-783.

·   Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: a sociological theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter Press.

·   Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

·   Luhmann, N. (1995). The two sociologies and the theory of society. Thesis Eleven, 43, pp. 28-47.

·   Luhmann, N. (1997). Limits of steering. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(1), pp. 41-57.

·   Luhmann, N. (1996). Modern Society Shocked by its Risks, Department of Sociology, The University of Hongkong, Occasional Papers 17, Hongkong 1996.

·  Marcuse, Herbert (1978–1979), “Theory and Politics: A Discussion with Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas, Heinz Lubasz and Telman Spenger,” translated by Leslie Adelson, Susan Hegger, Betty Sun, and Herbert Weinryb. Telos Vol. 38 (Winter), pp. 124–153.

·   Marcuse, H (1988), Negations: Essays in Critical Theory, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro. London: Free Association Books.

·   McCarthy, Thomas (1993), “The Idea of a Critical Theory and Its Relation to Philosophy,” in Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonß, and John McCole (eds.), On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 127–151.

·   Murphy, J. (1984). Niklas Luhmann and his view of the social function of law. The Existential Concept 107 Human Studies, 7, pp. 23-38.

·   Norris, Christopher (1992), Uncritical Theory: Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

·   Osborne, Peter (1992), “A Marxism for the Postmodern? Jameson’s Adorno,” New German Critique No. 56 (Spring–Summer), pp. 171–192.

·   Osborne, P (1996), “A Paradigm Too Far?” Radical Philosophy No. 80 (November– December), pp. 34–37.

·   Outhwaite, William (1994), Habermas: A Critical Introduction. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

·   Outhwaite, W (ed.) (1996), The Habermas Reader. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Postone, Moishe, and Barbara Brick (1993), “Critical Theory and Political Economy,” in Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonß, and John McCole (eds.), On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 215–256.

·   Ray, Larry J. (1993), Rethinking Critical Theory: Emancipation in the Age of Global Social Movements. London: Sage.

·   Rose, Gillian (1978), The Melancholy Science: An Introduction to the Thought of Theodor W. Adorno. London: Macmillan.

·   Schmidt, Alfred (1993), “Max Horkheimer’s Intellectual Physiognomy,” in Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonß, and John McCole (eds.) (1993), On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 25–47.

·   Stirk, Peter M. R. (1992), Max Horkheimer: A New Interpretation. Hemel Hempstead, U.K.: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

·   Tar, Zoltán (1985), The Frankfurt School: The Critical Theories of Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. New York: Schocken Books.

·   Therborn, Göran (1970), “The Frankfurt School,” New Left Review No. 63, pp. 66–96.

·   Thompson, John B. (1983), “Rationality and Social Rationalization: An Assessment of Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action,” Sociology Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 278–294.

·   Thompson, John B., and David Held (eds.) (1982), Habermas: Critical Debates. London: Macmillan.

·   Wagner, G. (Dec. 1997). The end of Luhmann s social systems theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27(4), pp. 387-410.

·   Wellmer, Albrecht (1983), “Reason, Utopia, and the Dialectic of Enlightenment,” Praxis International Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 83–107.

·   White, Stephen (1988), The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas: Reason, Justice and Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

·   White, S (ed.) (1995), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

·   Wiggershaus, Rolf (1994), The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance, translated by Michael Robertson. Cambridge: Polity.

·   Zuidervaart, Lambert (1991), Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory: The Redemption of Illusion. Cambridge: MIT Press.