Reich & the Frankfurt School

[Neil McLaughlin]

Thanks Jim, for the corrections which will be helpful as I pull the piece
together as part of a book.

I did not mean to seem  snarky about suggestions people made on email
list
serve. Of course, people can only suggest things in a short email, and
do not have the space to develop a full argument.
It is simply that simplistic accounts of Fromm are common in the critical
theory literature, and it gets annoying. I did nt mean my post in a
critical way.
I am sure many of the people on the list would respond with extended posts
if someone wrote "Adorno was an elitist who knew nothing about society" or
something of that nature.
A critique of Adorno, say, is only useful if developed, with examples.
Same with Fromm.
 I found Wiggerhaus very useful, but undeveloped in terms of his account
of the role of psychoanalysis in critical theory.
But then it was a historical work, more than anything.


Neil G. McLaughlin     			KTH-620
Associate Professor			McMaster University
Department of Sociology			Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail: nmclaugh@mcmaster.ca		L8S 4M4
Phone (905) 525-9140 Ext. 23611		Canada

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, James Rovira wrote:

> A couple of brief corrections:
>
> First,
>
> >
> >       Yet unlike the Frankfurt School, Freudians institutes have
> >       relatively formal structures and are generally not run for life
> >       by one individual
> >
> I think you mean "Freudian" institututes rather than "Freudians."
>
> >
> >       Theodor Adorno clearly played a major role in the internal
> >       conflict within the Institute. Wiggershaus points out, for
> >       example, that Adorno was fond on referring to Fromm as a
> >       professional Jew (Wiggershaus, 1994: 266).
> >
> I think you meant to write, "fond of."
>
> In this sentence:
>
> >
> >       Horkheimer and Adornos neglect in fully crediting Fromm for his
> >       part in developing the F-scale could be seen somewhat generously
> >       as what the literary critic Harold Bloom once call the anxiety
> >       of influence.
> >
> I think you meant to say, "once called" rather than "once call."
>
> In this sentence, I think there's an extra word:
>
> >
> >       since many scholars who came to intellectual maturity during the
> >       1960s and 1970s were influenced by the one side-sided criticisms
> >       made of Fromm by Frankfurt School
> >
> Should it be "one-sided" rather than "one-side sided."
>
> It's interesting you provide these quotations from Adorno:
>
> >     is sentimental and wrong to begin with, being a mixture of social
> >     democracy and anarchism, and above all shows a severe lack of the
> >     concept of dialectics.
>
>
> >           For Adorno, the revisionists give an oversimplified account
> >           of the interaction of the mutually alienated institutions id
> >           and ego, posit a direct connection between the
> >           institutional sphere and social experience and are guilty
> >           of superficial historicism (Adorno, 1968: 79; 89).
> >
>
> given your previous comments. It seems that the suggestions offered
> earlier had at least some validity in Adorno's case.
>
> Overall you present a very convincing and fairly nuanced desciption of
> Fromm's break with Horkheimer and the FS. I appreciate having read it.
> It's everything I would expect from a 20 page or so professionally
> written article but not, of course, what I expect from a three line post
> to a listserve.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>