|
Source:
https://newpol.org/review/frankfurt-school-and-jews/
Review
The Frankfurt School and the Jews
By: Michael Löwy
Summer 2015 (New
Politics Vol. XV No. 3, Whole Number 59)
The Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives
and Antisemitism
By: Jack Jacobs
Cambridge University Press, 2015. 268 pages
Jacobs’ The Frankfurt School is an outstanding piece of scholarship.
The relationship of the Frankfurt School to Judaism has, of course,
been discussed in several works, for instance by Anson Rabinbach,
Martin Jay, Dan Diner, and others, as well as in some articles, for
instance by Judith Marcus and Zoltan Tar, but this remarkable book by
Jack Jacobs, well known for his research on Jews and socialism, is the
first book-long attempt to deal with the issue. He does it in an
evenhanded way, without blaming or celebrating, but trying to
understand the Jewish roots of the Critical Theorists and the ways in
which Jewishness and anti-Semitism impacted on their careers and
thoughts. Well documented—with a hundred pages of footnotes and
bibliography!—and well argued, it is certainly destined to become the
main reference for any future research on the questions involved.
Gershom Scholem once defined the Frankfurt School as “a remarkable
Jewish sect.” As Jacobs shows, this is a widely exaggerated claim:
Although most of the members of the Frankfurt Institute for Social
Research (ISR) were of Jewish origin, “Marxism was a far brighter star
in their constellation than Jewishness,” particularly during the Weimar
period.
The first chapter of the book deals with “Jewish Life Paths and the ISR
in the Weimar Republic.” While Max Horkheimer, Theodor Wisegrund Adorno
(whose Jewish father converted to Protestantism, while his mother was
Catholic), Henryk Grossmann, and Friedrich Pollock had little interest
for Judaism, the same doesn’t apply to two other members of the first
core group of the ISR, Leo Löwenthal and Erich Fromm.
Leo Löwenthal—whom I had the chance to meet several times in the
1980s—was both a radical socialist (he had joined the leftist
Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany) and an Orthodox Jew,
and his early writings, such as “The Demonic. Outline of a Negative
Philosophy of History” (1920), were a unique combination of Marxism and
mystic Judaism. After joining the ISR in 1926, his thinking became
secularized, but his interest in Jewish Messianism remained present
throughout his life. The same applies to Erich Fromm, whose
dissertation on the Jewish Law (1922) is an apology for Orthodox
Judaism as an “anti-capitalist religion,” as opposed to the bourgeois
Reform and Liberal Jewish currents. (This radical dimension of the
young Fromm seems to have eluded Jacobs’ discussion of his early work.)
As did Löwenthal, Fromm, who joined the Frankfurt Institute in 1930,
moved away from Orthodoxy but always remained interested in the Jewish
tradition.
The second chapter deals with “The Significance of Antisemitism: The
Exile Years.” After Hitler’s rise to power, the ISR moved to
Switzerland and, soon later, to the United States. Their first
reflections on fascist anti-Semitism reveal an incredible blindness.
Adorno, who didn’t consider himself as a Jew at that moment, believed
he could remain in Nazi Germany and was disposed, as he wrote a friend
in 1934, to do so “regardless of cost.” Soon afterward, he was forced
to go into exile. Horkheimer, who had emigrated to the United States,
wrote a piece in 1938, “The Jews and Europe,” which contains some
valuable insights on fascism but has a vulgar economistic approach to
the Jewish question. According to Horkheimer—supported by Adorno—the
economic basis of anti-Semitism is the dying out of the sphere of
circulation and the increasing superfluity of trade in the age of
monopoly capitalism! This is a double nonsense: How can capitalism
exist without circulation and trade, and what has this to do with Nazi
anti-Semitism? Jacobs compares Horkheimer’s piece with the crude
“Marxism” of a Stalinist piece published in 1931 by a certain Otto
Heller, but I would argue that it is much worse to raise such arguments
in 1938, five years after Hitler’s rise to power, than in 1931. On the
matter of the early “blindness” of members of the ISR, one has to add
Franz Neumann, who criticized Horkheimer’s essay for overestimating the
importance of anti-Semitism for the Nazi regime!
Fortunately, Horkheimer and Adorno’s approach began to change in
1939-1940, when they began to develop a vast research project on
anti-Semitism, ultimately sponsored by the American Jewish Committee.
But the decisive turning point in their intellectual evolution was the
arrival in their hands, in June 1941, of Walter Benjamin’s
philosophical testament, the thesis “On the Concept of History.” As
Anson Rabinbach very aptly summarizes, this document provided them with
“a guiding star” for the constellation of themes—exile, Jewish fate,
catastrophe of civilization—that ultimately make up their masterpiece
Dialectic of Enlightenment. “Elements of Anti-Semitism,” a chapter in
the form of philosophical fragments, is one of the most important of
the book, and it contains some quite radical theses, for instance, that
fascism emerges from liberalism and that liberals fail to acknowledge
that anti-Semitism cannot be expunged from such a society. The
essential idea advanced by Horkheimer and Adorno is that fascist
anti-Semitism helps to elucidate the dialectic of enlightenment itself
and therefore the history of civilization. This is a very significant
argument but unfortunately is not further developed by Jack Jacobs.
In parallel to their philosophical essay, Adorno and Horkheimer
organized, as mentioned above, a vast research project on
anti-Semitism, which resulted in several books published as a series,
“Studies in Prejudice.” The best known is The Authoritarian Personality
(1948), written, in part, by Adorno, which showed that anti-Semitism is
intimately associated with certain character structures, such as blind
submission to authority, violent aggressive attitude toward the
“other,” and rigid stereotypical thinking. Leo Löwenthal and Norbert
Guterman wrote the second book of the series, Prophets of Deceit
(1949), dealing with American anti-Semitic agitators such as Father
Coughlin, Gerald L. K. Smith, and a few others. Curiously enough, there
is hardly a mention, in this context, of the most influential—by
far!—American anti-Semite, namely Henry Ford, author of The
International Jew (1921), who not only had a big impact in the United
States, but whose book became a favorite of a German fascist named
Adolf Schickelgruber.
As Jack Jacobs persuasively argues, there is significant interaction
between these empirical studies and the philosophical reflections of
Horkheimer and Adorno in Dialectic of the Enlightenment. This does not
apply to the third book of the series, Rehearsal for Destruction. A
Study of Political Antisemitism in Imperial Germany, by Paul Massing,
who was part of the ISR but not of Critical Theory, and applies even
less to the two others, by social scientists with no connection to the
Frankfurt School (Nathan Ackerman, Marie Jahoda, Bruno Bettelheim, and
Morris Janowitz).
The third and last chapter deals with the attitude of the Frankfurt
School to Zionism and the State of Israel. Jacobs comes to the
surprising conclusion that those members of the ISR who had strong
religious and cultural connection to Judaism, such as Erich Fromm, were
hostile to Zionism and Israel, considered to be contradictory to the
teachings of the Prophets and to the Messianic promise of universal
redemption. Fromm supported the movement Ichud, created by Magnes and
Buber, who proposed a bi-national solution for Palestine. On the other
hand, those who had little relation to Jewish tradition, such as
Herbert Marcuse, were supportive of the Israeli state, even if they had
strong criticisms of its policies. Löwenthal and Horkheimer fell
somewhere in between these two poles.
At the end of this important and insightful book, Jack Jacobs
concludes: One cannot explain Critical Theory by reference solely to
Judaism, but one cannot explain the lives of the Frankfurt School’s key
writers without dealing with their Jewish roots.
|
|