Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School

The following article serves as an introduction to Critical Theory. It is not meant to be comprehensive but focuses on core issues and tries to dispel some common misconceptions.

What is Critical Theory?

Critical Theory is a sociological theory founded on teachings from the philosophers Hegel, Marx and the founder of psychoanalysis, Freud. Its main objective is a society of reasonable and emancipated people. To achieve this, its founders developed the technique of Critique of Ideology from Marx and Engels which can be used to uncover and debunk the influence of ideologies. For Marx, ideology refers to mismatches between the self-image of a society and its reality. Thus, Critical Theory is not merely a theory, but a practice to disclose society’s real drivers, understand them in their totality and cause real change.

The name Critical Theory itself was developed to set itself apart from the scientific traditional theory. It stems from the insight that because our modern society is a result of the process of thousands of years of reason and enlightenment, that started with mastering and subduing nature, this aspect of subduing is baked into our ideological DNA, resulting in perpetual conflicts and separating us from just being human. This process was described in the fundamental piece Dialectic of Enlightenment.
Traditional theory will therefore only be able to perpetuate the mechanism of power and oppression that started with subduing nature, which over the course of history transformed into people oppressing people, instead. Each perpetuation step is called affirmation, resulting in a Positivistic ideology. To stop this cycle of perpetuation called Dialectic, modern science must impose self-reflection upon itself to break this cycle. The process of self-reflection to break this reproduction cycle is called Negative Dialectics and described in the book of the same name, making it one of the fundamental works of Critical Theory.
The incorporation of the dialectical method implies that Critical Theory is not an idealistic, but a strictly materialistic theory, which also means that human needs are put at the center of interest, not abstract ideas. However, Critical Theory rejects the deterministic notion of Dialectical Materialism which states that because of an assumed dialectical nature of history, human advance is always implied and inevitable.

Later works of Critical Theory also involve critical assessments of the role of modern media and popular culture. These works built upon critique of ideology and the dialectal view on the development of history, yet don’t don’t add anything fundamental to Critical Theory itself.

Critical Theory is Critical Practice

Critical Practice is the detection, uncovering and debunking of ideologies – hidden motives that drive the actions of an ideology’s proponent. To detect and dispel ideology at work, we must

1. before even starting, reflect upon our own actions and motives;
2. compare whether the motives stated by observed individual or group match reality;
3. if not, question or probe to find out what the unconscious motives are;
4. identify and debunk the real driver, thus outlining the ideology;
5. if desirable, show how adjust motives with actions.

Critique of Ideology in Practice: Islam and the Regressive Left

A typical observation in contemporary debates is the unconditional defense of Muslims through liberals, especially orthodox Muslims and their religious practices including the wearing of hijabs or niqabs, often attacking critics of such practices with accusations of „Islamophobia“ or racism. Instead, the creation of safe-spaces for Muslims is demanded where Muslims shall have a right to practice their Muslim identity without being questioned or criticized for it.
When probed for the apologist’s motives, they commonly refer to universal values such as the ones from the Enlightenment, more specifically the emancipation of man, or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom exercise of religion and freedom of speech, among other things. However, there is a mismatch between this noble motive and reality as real world Islam itself is most often oppressive towards women, curbs free speech and advocates the inferiority of adherents of other religions, and especially atheists. These practices are in direct contradiction with the values ostensibly defended. We can therefore conclude an ideology at work. To find out the real driver and dispel the ideology, we must probe and question its adherents. A common pattern is to collect as many arguments as possible and use inductive and deductive reasoning to draw probable or definitive conclusions. Collecting more arguments is possible through debate and finding the arguments which are fallacies. Common fallacies in Islamophobia debates include Texas sharpshooter („one billion Muslims are peaceful“) / no true Scotsman („Islamists and Jihadists are not the real Muslims“ / „liberal and secular Muslims are not the real Muslims“), and, very commonly, a special form of Whataboutism called cultural relativism, for instance stating that in the West, women are also subject to misogyny, therefore it’s not our right to criticize pristine cultures such as Islam as we aren’t doing better.
The latter arguments reveal the ideological driver: If Islamic practices are not being judged and criticized through probing against objective, universal values that also apply universally and independently from its adherents, the underlying ideology of the Islam apologist must really be anti-universal and particularist. In case of the safe-space demand for a Muslim identity¹, the ideology takes its full form. If „Muslim“ is an identity that deserves complete shielding from criticism, it puts people into a forced Muslim collective. The safe-space demand also interrelates with a permanent state of victim mentality in direction contradiction with the dictum of the Enlightenment:

Enlightenment is the emancipation of man from a state of self-imposed tutelage… of incapacity to use his own intelligence without external guidance. Such a state of tutelage I call ’self-imposed‘ if it is due, not to lack of intelligence, but to lack of courage or determination to use one’s own intelligence without the help of a leader. Sapere aude! Dare to use your own intelligence! This is the battle-cry of the Enlightenment. — Immanuel Kant, 1785

As universal values are what makes up modernity and the Western world, this ideology can be called anti-Western or anti-modern, therefore hinting at a deep rejection of civilization and globalization in favor of postmodernist cultural collectivism.
Adjusting motives with action would be to actually apply universal values and criticize the mismatch of Islamic practices and teachings, showing how they are deeply incompatible and starting to support secular Muslims who want to reform the religion to make it compatible with universal values, something which evidently puts them at danger with conservative and Islamist Muslims.

Sam Harris attacking Ben Affleck’s Islam apologist ideology

Meaning Lost in History and Translation

Critical Theory was developed when Max Horkheimer took over the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in 1931. This circumstance led to the late alternative name Frankfurt School for Critical Theory, but was never endorsed by any of its proponents.

Outside German-speaking circles, the term critical theory got picked up and ripped out of context by proponents of incompatible or even antagonistic schools of thought, especially Post-structuralism. Post-structuralism is a late postmodernist philosophy from 1968 that rejects all notions of objective truth, the totality of society and negativity, therefore also the concept of critique of ideology. This doesn’t stop its proponents to occasionally use Critical Theory quotes out of context, especially those related to modern culture. This helped to create a right-wing conspiracy theory called Cultural Marxism that creates the false impression that Critical Theory was responsible for phenomena linked to the excessive political correctness of the postmodernist left.

---

1. There is room to argue for safe-spaces to be special forms of the appeal to nature fallacy: Muslims just are that way, therefore it is true ↩

What does Anti-German mean?

The following text is translated from German. The original from Stephan Grigat can be found at Café Critique and was originally published as an op-ed in Die Presse on February 19, 2007.

Those Anti-Germans! For more than 15 years, they’ve been haunting political debates in Germany, and lately they started to appear in Austrian discussions. They are said to be racists. And warmongers. Friends of Bush (Translator’s Note: George W.) and admirers of Sharon. Some people think they are academic careerists, others nasty polemicists. The left hate them as they see them as liberal-conservative converts. The right don’t like them as Marxist. Where do these unpopular critics come from? What do they want?
The history of modern Anti-Germans begins at the end of the 80s, when fractions of the radical left recollected Jean Amèry who kept stressing that the left had to redefine itself in opposition to antisemitism and anti-Zionism since the Six-Day War in 1967. Over time, an independent current of sociocritical thinking emerged under permanent scrutiny of the German Homeland Security (TN: Verfassungsschutz), Austrian columnists or Japanese bloggers.

Politico-economical Constellation

The meaning of „German“ is seen through the lens of ideological critique in the context of Anti-German critique. It’s not dealing with a hereditary national character, but with a politico-economical constellation. It’s not about a specific mentality, but a particular form of capitalist socialization which however spawns „typically German“ social characters in turn.

There used to be a peculiar interrelationship between state and society in Germany and Austria which ultimately resulted in the Holocaust. This constellation can be dubbed „German“ as it emerged in Germany for the first time. But it is not a phenomenon which is historically or geographically confinable, hence it is neither limited to the German state nor the period of Nazism. The representation of „German“ is therefore generalizable. Ever since the specific German-Austrian crisis resolution model became a reality through annihilation and world war in the Third Reich, representatives of Islamic barbarism can be criticized as German ideologists in terms of ideological critique. They openly employ elements of Nazist ideology both historically and now for their implementation of the Ummah, the society of all Muslims.

This Ummah Socialism, as the murderous jihadist arson should be called due to its resemblance as well as in contrast to its Nazi prototype, poses an existential threat to Israel which is barely addressed in Europe. Anti-German critique expresses solidarity with Israel due to the insight that the world as it is currently constituted is perpetually reproducing antisemitism. Today, the nation of the Holocaust-survivors faces the problem that its military deterrence barely works anymore. How to deter antisemitic suicide bombers? How to threaten politicians like Iran’s former president Rafsanjani with retaliation, who speculated that the detonation of a nuclear bomb in proximity to Tel Aviv would be enough to wipe out Israel and the death of Millions of Iranians in consequence of retaliation would have to be put up with?

A military intervention for the weakening of the Iranian destructive potential could only be avoided, if it can be avoided at all, through the opposite of the current events, decisive economical and political pressure from all relevant nations. For this reason – not out of warmongering enthusiasm – Anti-German critique targets any appeasement of the protagonists of the jihadist-eliminationist antisemitism which was articulated through the attacks on the World Trade Center. The War on Terror is a war against Islamist fascism. It is criticized by Anti-Germans only if not waged and named as such.

Is racism towards people in the Arabic or Iranian sphere here? To the contrary, it would be racist to assume that clerical-fascist or pan-Arabic dictatorships represent the proper way of life for these people, and Islam is their intrinsic culture.

Gateway for Antisemitism

On top of that, are those Anti-Germans Marxists? To the contrary, they reactivate a former author of the New Free Press as well as Karl Marx himself and the Critical Theory of Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer against the havoc Marxism has been wreaking throughout the past 100 years in theory, but especially in practice. Of all the things, it is Marx‘ critique of political economy which must be rediscovered and turned against traditional Marxism, against Bolshevist and social democrat perversions, which have always been gateways for antisemitism and its geopolitical reproduction, anti-Zionism, in the left.

The Rehabilitated German

In the previous post, we’ve learned how Nazi ideology persists all the way through today and becomes visible as a form of exclusionist collectivism that can be summed up by the German term völkisch, which means Volk-related. In order to grok the thinking patterns behind this, we need to scrutinize the part of the modern German populace that appears to be opposed those on the völkisch side – and ultimately find out what these opposing groups actually have in common: The German Left and the German Establishment, the Mitte.

Rehab for Krauts

Original photo by blu-news.org – Pegida Demonstration in Dresden am 05.01.2015, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37967995

The most notorious motto which was picked up by PEGIDA and other groups of concerned citizens dates back to the final days of the Socialist GDR, German Democratic Republic: »Wir sind das Volk!«, we are the people. This motto, back then as well as today, evokes the spirit of what bonds together all true Germans, which means everyone who is genuinely considered so under the völkisch idea. Chanting it means to voice out against what is considered to be a corrupt elite under secret foreign rule.

How does the left counter this? Clearly by rejecting the völkisch idea? Unfortunately, nothing is further from the truth. Instead they say »Ihr seid nicht das Volk!«, you are not the people, which leaves only one possible conclusion: We are the people, not you. We are the true Volk. You are the Bad Germans, the Nazis, yet we are the Good Germans. The Rehabilitated Germans.

The idea of rehabilitation is what unites the establishment, Mitte, with the left. The modern German consensus is nazifrei, free of Nazis: Cleansing society from those who appear like echoes from the past. Clearly, nazifrei must be a noble and reasonable thing? Let us remember what makes up the idea of Volksverrat from the teaser: High treason is any act which is directed against the ideology of the proper Germans, and this also to do with those who are explicitly not German.

And yet, these political currents of proper and rehabilitated Germans differ in every other regard. Their interrelationship is antagonistic and the objects of their projections, the refugees, are the same, only the nature of the projection differs fundamentally. In either case, refugees are much less perceived as sentient human beings, but much rather like a homogeneous mass. In case of the proper Germans, refugees are like a calamity, which becomes apparent through the choice of words for the what is perceived not as a crisis to those who have fled, but to the Germans themselves: Flüchtlingswelle, refugee wave. To the rehabilitated Germans, on the other hand, the misery of the refugees is the production material for complacency and a better global reputation. Even more importantly, it is a weapon used to create a bad conscience in those who live elsewhere in Europe and dare to harbor fewer of the refugees.

So it becomes clear there is a common German ideology that remains untouched by both time and political positions as long as they are German. Being German seems to be inextricably tied to collectives and to an ideology, but not to the actual well-being or needs of people. Friedrich Engels wrote in a letter to Franz Mehring in 1893:

Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker. Consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives.

In other words, the self-reproducing powers of ideologies stem from the fact that they are driven by motives unrecognized by their advocates.

Volksverrat Today

As we’ve learned in the teaser, Volksverrat served as a means to hunt and fight those who were considered enemy to the Nazi’s idea of the German people. Attacking this idea was automatically treated like trying to topple the state. This means that the state and this idea, this ideology had become the very same thing under Nazi rule. If selfless human acts are considered detrimental to this ideology, it is fair to consider it not only to be the worst possible set of ideas for any truly human being, it makes studying and opposing it an act of humanity.

We could stop here if we are able to rule out the circumstances that led to the Nazi rule could ever repeat. It is evident this isn’t the case. We also have to understand whether and how it is limited to a subset of people, like the German people, including those of modern day Germany. In order to understand the Nazi ideology, we need to dismantle it and trace back its roots, and how it persists beyond its peak at which the German people mass-murdered millions of human beings – not as an act of war, but much rather as a rationalized requirement for the same ideology that made Germans murder political opposition, Volksverräter.

Influx and Regress

Following the events that led to the mass-emigration of the Syrian populace, contemporary Germany became the safe haven of choice for a majority of people who were fleeing certain death. This also gave rise to a popular German movement of self-dubbed concerned citizens who are pushing an agenda to strictly limit the influx of refugees and forcefully send back those who have already arrived. While the concerned citizens don’t publicly ask for the eradication of refugees, the umbrella movement PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the Occident) quickly developed popular terminology to use against political opposition against their own agenda: Gutmenschen and Volksverräter. The former is usually used against non-members of the political establishment and roughly translates to a polemic version of philanthropist. Politicians, who are considered solely to be servants to the native German people, consequently become Volksverräter, criminals committing the most severe of crimes.

The parallel use of the two terms, Gutmensch and Volksverräter, hints at their connection. To proponents of the underlying ideology, they can almost be used interchangeably. Being a philanthropist and a traitor to the people is essentially the same thing to them, just like to the Nazis. Clearly however, there are important differences. Neither does contemporary Germany live under Nazi rule, nor do the concerned citizens follow a closed worldview that is as elaborate as the one of WWII Germany. Simply put, the concerned citizens might have a more than questionable opinion that is rightfully opposed by others, but calling them Nazis is not only wrong but plays down the crimes against humanity committed by Germans in the 30s and 40s. Even the horrible crimes committed by some concerned citizens that include burning down refugee shelters or even attacking and killing refugees in some cases is still negligible in contrast to the industrialized murder of millions that could be carried out without noteworthy resistance. And yet, the mob expresses hatred against strangers, even if they have just fled terror and certain death, losing everything on their way to Germany. Those who deserve compassion and help are confronted by a collective that tries to blame all individual misery on the only people in even greater misery.

However, concerned citizens are a minority. To fully understand the origins of Volksverrat, we need to look at how the German left and the mainstream are handling PEGIDA, concerned citizens and refugees.

Willkommen im Berliner Zoo

English version see below.

Der Zoologische Garten ist der älteste Zoo Deutschlands und zugleich der artenreichste der Welt. Seine gesamte Geschichte über war er eine der größten Attraktionen Berlins und genoss weit über die Stadt hinaus einen guten Ruf. An diesem Erfolg hatten insbesondere die Berliner Juden einen großen Anteil: Von den 4000 Aktionären der Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG waren vor dem Nationalsozialismus 1500 Juden. Mit der Arisierung war es ihnen ab 1938 nicht mehr möglich, ihre Aktien zu vererben oder weiterzuverkaufen – sie konnten sie lediglich zu Schleuderpreisen dem Zoo übertragen. Ihnen war es ab diesem Jahr auch verboten, den Zoo zu betreten.

Wie so viele andere deutsche Unternehmen hat auch der Zoo lange gewartet, zu diesem Teil seiner Geschichte Stellung zu beziehen. Die kläglichen Versuche des Zoos, sich mit seiner Vergangenheit auseinanderzusetzen, kamen außerdem viel zu spät und beliefen sich auf eine Gedenktafel am Antilopenhaus und ein zum Thema erschienenes Buch über den Zoo im NS, das vom Zoo mitfinanziert wurde. Dieses Buch von Monica Schmidt, das auf einer 2001 in Auftrag gegebenen Studie basiert, macht deutlich, dass der Zoo seine jüdischen Aktionäre aus freien Stücken aus ihrer Position verdrängte. Es hätte zum Anlass genommen werden können, sich weiter mit dem Thema zu befassen, stattdessen war für Andreas Knierim, Chef des Zoos, mit Erscheinen des Buches das Thema wohl erledigt. In seiner Rede anlässlich der Verlegung eines Stolpersteins in Wilmersdorf für die Tochter jüdischer Anteilseigner erwähnte Knierim den Nationalsozialismus nicht einmal; er erzählte lediglich davon, wie sehr Hilde Singer den Zoo geliebt habe. Kein Wort darüber, dass diese Liebe mit der Arisierung des Zoos endete, kein Wort darüber, dass ihre Familie in Auschwitz ermordet wurde.

In der BRD hat es mittlerweile Tradition, zu diesem Thema pathetische Reden zu halten und sich in Bekenntnissen über die deutsche Schuld an der Shoah zu übertreffen. Doch all das wohlfeile Gerede von Verantwortung führt selten zu materieller Entschädigung. Solcherlei Forderungen werden schulterzuckend abgetan. Angefangen bei den viel zu niedrigen „Wiedergutmachungszahlungen“ der jungen Bundesrepublik an Israel, die wohlgemerkt aus politischem Kalkül und nicht aus einem schlechten Gewissen heraus geleistet wurden, mussten sich viele Opfer des deutschen Vernichtungswahns, wenn überhaupt, mit heuchlerischen Gesten und symbolischen Beträgen begnügen, was bei den Feiern zum 50. Jahrestags der israelisch-deutschen Beziehungen gerne unter den Tisch fallen gelassen wird. Man will sich den Stolz auf die eigene Aufarbeitungsleistung nicht verderben lassen durch das schnöde Geld, an dem es vielen der noch lebenden Holocaustüberlebenden mangelt. Man baut damit lieber Denkmäler.

Es gibt keine Wiedergutmachung für die Shoah, aber das darf keine Entschuldigung dafür sein, nicht einmal einen materiellen Ausgleich zu schaffen: Die Nachfahren der jüdischen Anteilseigner haben bis heute nichts von den Investitionen ihrer Eltern und Großeltern in den Zoo gesehen, diesbezügliche Anfragen an den Zoo wurden abgeblockt.

Wir fordern, dass die Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG und das an ihr beteiligte Land Berlin die Nachfahren der rechtmäßigen Anteilseigner ausfindig macht und ihnen eine angemessene Entschädigung zahlt – samt dem Wertzuwachs, den die Aktie durchlaufen hat. Momentan ist die Aktie etwa 4000€ wert, mindestens diese Summe wäre also angemessen. Für ein millionenschweres Unternehmen wie den Zoo sollte das kein Problem darstellen.

Welcome to the Berlin Zoo

The Berlin Zoo is Germany’s oldest zoo and it offers the largest variety of species worldwide. From its opening in 1844 until today it was one of the biggest attractions in the city and the region. Jews in Berlin had a great deal to do with this success: 1500 of its 4000 shareholders before National Socialism were Jews. When the „Aryanization“ started in the 30’s, Jews were forbidden to pass on their shares. They were also not allowed to sell their shares to anyone except to the zoo. From 1938 they were banned from entering the zoo altogether.

Like many German companies, it took the zoo far too long to even comment on this part of their history. The pathetic attempts to deal with this topic amounted to a commemorative sign put up at the „Antilopenhaus“ and a book about the Zoo during NS, co-financed by the zoo. This book by Monica Schmidt shows that the zoo deliberately pushed Jews out.
It could have been a start for a debate about the Berlin Zoo during Nazism. Instead, the director of the zoo Andreas Knierim seems to think that there is nothing more to say. In his speech at the inauguration of a memorial stone („Stolperstein“) for Hilde Singer, daughter and niece of Jewish shareholders, he didn’t even mention National Socialism, nor did he talk about them having been murdered in Auschwitz. His only topic was Hilde’s love for the zoo. Not a word on how that love was brutally ended with German extermination politics, as were the lives of her family.

Traditionally, Germans excel in giving dramatic speeches on their „historic responsibility“ because of the Holocaust. But all this cheap talk almost never leads to material compensation or support. Demands of this kind are usually just shrugged off. The insubstantial „reparations“ to Israel, that were as a matter of fact agreed to by Germany out of economic considerations, not out of a true bad conscience, are just one example. Many of the German’s victims received nothing but hypocritical sermons or symbolic payments, if any. This tends to be forgotten in the celebrations taking place this year, marking 50 years of diplomatic relations with Israel. It would just spoil all the self-congratulation to talk about vile money. The money is rather used to build yet another memorial instead of supporting the last remaining Survivors, many of whom are in need.

There can be no atonement for the Holocaust, but that is not an excuse for the refusal to financially compensate the victims: Jewish shareholders of the zoo have not seen a coin of the money their parents and grandparents invested. The zoo has until today blocked any attempts do deal with their claims.

We request the „Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG“ and the state of Berlin to find the remaining rightful shareholders and their descendants to pay them an appropriate reimbursement, including the capital gain of the shares. A sum of at least 4000€ seems appropriate, which is the approximate value of the shares today. This shouldn’t pose a problem for a business worth millions like the Berlin Zoo.

Junges Forum der Deutsch-Israelischen Gesellschaft Berlin und Antideutsche Aktion Berlin im Juni 2015