Authority and family

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Authority and Family is an essay by Max Horkheimer from his earlier creative phase before the experiences of National Socialism and exile in the USA. It appeared in 1936 as part of the Studies on Authority and Family , a theory and research project investigating the authoritarian personality .

The original title of the Horkheimer essay was: Theoretical Drafts on Authority and Family: General Part .

Preface

For several years now, the Institute for Social Research had set itself the task of researching the connection between the various areas of material and spiritual culture . "Authority" emerged as a decisive factor, without which the interaction between the individual cultural spheres would be impossible to understand. However, among all social institutions that make the individual receptive to authority, the family comes first. First of all, the European family will be the subject of investigation.

"Authoritarian" means authority-affirming (viewed from the object of authority); "Authoritative" a behavior demanding authority, viewed from the point of view of the authority subject.

Culture

Horkheimer begins this part with a discussion of various theories about the formation of historical epochs and advocates a materialistic-economic perspective. The term epoch is intended to encompass the historically formative culture that has a multiple formative effect: economy , law , politics , art , religion , philosophy , all individuals and their mental state, institutions, works, life practice. An epoch or culture is always more or less contradicting itself and in dynamic development. At the moment, European or US culture dominates, capitalism in immanent crisis.

Broadly speaking, social processes are always determined economically, but specifically from the character of the groups involved . This character is in turn subject to social imprinting. Society is not only shaped economically, historically and culturally, but also by forms of violence and coercion ( state authority , religious morality, etc.), but this is only weak or indirect today in Western societies. As examples of how intensely culture (especially religious culture) can shape everyday life, politics, etc., Horkheimer cites the ancestral beliefs in China and the Indian caste system . People tend to stick to the culture they are familiar with, which grants them emotional security through classification and subordination:

“This is also one of the reasons why world historical changes cannot be expected from the fact that people change first. They are usually brought about actively by groups in which no solidified psychic nature is decisive, but knowledge itself has become power. Insofar as old forms of society continue to exist, it is not insights that play the main role, but rather human modes of reaction that have solidified in interaction with a system of cultural institutions on the basis of the social life process. These include the conscious and unconscious ability to co-determine every step of the individual, to subordinate oneself and to subordinate oneself, the quality of affirming existing relationships as such in thinking and acting, of living in dependence on given orders and foreign will, in short, authority as a mark of all existence. "(p. 357)

Depending on the historical situation, Horkheimer sees the belief in authority as a partly productive, partly inhibiting force of history .

authority

The concept of authority can only be clarified historically in relation to an established social theory. For the time being, Horkheimer defines "as authoritarian those internal and external modes of action (...) in which people submit to a foreign authority" (p. 359). Authority as affirmed dependency can be in one's own interest (e.g. the defense of an attacked city in antiquity) or it can be progressive in character (development of social productive forces).

“But even at times when the relationship of dependency was undoubtedly appropriate to the level of human powers and their resources, it has historically been associated with failures for the addicts, and in periods of stagnation and decline this meant maintaining the necessary affirmation of the existing relationships of dependency by the ruled, not only the perpetuation of their material, but also that of their intellectual inability and became a fetter for human development in general. "

In this way, authority becomes the “epitome of artificially maintained social relationships and ideas that have long since become untrue and that run counter to the real interests of the general public.” (P. 360)

Bourgeois thinking began in the Enlightenment process as a battle of reason against authority and tradition. It ends with the vilification of empty authority as well as the empty concept of reason with no claim to justice, happiness and freedom. This shows that criticism of authority through reason can also result in submission to authority. Horkheimer cites the Protestant criticism of the personal authority of the Pope as an example , which in turn resulted in Protestant submission to the word.

In the Middle Ages personal authority prevailed. With the assertion of the abstract, isolated individual in capitalism, non-personal authoritarian relationships arose instead, into which people had to submit. For the doubly free masses of wage workers , this means above all the economic compulsion to have to sell their labor. Even small entrepreneurs who are considered independent are stuck in this situation, because despite the best planning and the most intuitive premonition about the economic method of their business, they are subject to the subsequent results on the market. The same applies to economic monopolies on a higher level, because they are subject to the processes of the world market and the political developments of general competition between states.

Horkheimer regards the belief in planning economic genius as an illusion: "Which goods he manufactures, what kind of machines he wants to use, how he brings workers and machines together, which location he chooses for his factory, all of this appears as a result of his free decision, as a product of his foresight and his creative power. ”(p. 369) The subsequent success on the market is“ in the current order not only mediated by predictable psychological and political elements, but also by the summation of countless uncontrollable events ”(p. 370) In this sense, freedom means for all human beings merely to adapt actively or passively to the market, of the capitalist society that processes fatefully like blind nature.

"The most complete possible adaptation of the subject to the reified authority of the economy is at the same time the shape of reason in bourgeois reality." (P. 372f)

These relationships seem natural, inevitable, eternal and self-evident to people. The rising National Socialism is only effective on the basis of this belief. This prevailing belief as a way of thinking is also not evaded by experts and anarchists :

“To the extent that the expert judgment is limited to the isolated object, it does it injustice in that it does not reveal the contrast between real achievement in art and science and the prevailing conditions. The anarchist's fundamentally anti-authoritarian attitude, on the other hand, is an exaggeration of the bourgeois self-confidence of one's own freedom, which can be realized now and everywhere if one only wants: a consequence of the idealistic view that material conditions play no role. "(P . 386)

Horkheimer, on the other hand, pleads for the detachment of authority “from selfish interest and exploitation” (p. 386), in which a division of labor into managerial and executive functions without separation into good and bad life or even according to class membership is possible. This authority then implemented the jointly agreed plans.

family

The relationship of individuals to authority is conditioned by the constant interaction of institutions to create and consolidate the character types that correspond to them . To this end, there are conscious measures by the church, school, press etc. But even more important is the influence of everyday life and individual role models in public and private life, i.e. processes that are not controlled by consciousness. In this regard, the family plays a central role in shaping the child's character, desires, skills and discipline.

The concept of obedience education prevailed in absolutism . This changed in liberalism for education to understand the necessity of obedience. This preparation for fitting oneself into the authority that is changing into an apersonal one can already be seen in Protestantism. Martin Luther propagated the concept of the landlord, according to which patriarchal landlords should be shown respect for their strength. This results in the child learning not only to recognize what is given, but to love it.

“In this family situation, which is decisive for the development of the child, the authority structure of reality outside the family is largely anticipated: the prevailing differences in the conditions of existence that the individual finds in the world are easy to accept, it must be under their presupposition make his way and shouldn't shake it. To recognize facts is to acknowledge them. Differences set by nature are willed by God, and in bourgeois society wealth and poverty also appear as natural. When the child respects a moral relationship in the paternal strength and thus learns to love with his heart what it establishes as existing with its intellect, it experiences the first training for the civic relationship of authority. "(P. 390f)

The relationships in the patriarchal nuclear family create openness for reified authority (authority that appears natural as an end in itself). As examples of the breadth of this reified relationship of authority, Horkheimer cites the Protestant concept of God after Kierkegaard's criticism and the modern authoritarian state theory of National Socialism . The father's authority is also supported by the fact that he takes on the role of the main breadwinner, i.e. the provider, in the small family.

“The spiritual world into which the child grows as a result of this dependency, as well as the imagination through which it animates the real, its dreams and desires, its ideas and judgments are of the thought of the power of people over people, of the above and Below, mastered command and obedience. This scheme is one of the forms of the mind of this epoch, a transcendental function. The need for a hierarchy and division of humanity based on natural, accidental, irrational principles becomes so familiar and self-evident to the child that it is only able to experience the earth and the universe, even the hereafter, from this perspective; every new impression is already preformed by it. The ideologies of achievement and merit, harmony and justice have a place next to this in this worldview, because the contradiction through the reification of social differences does not become conscious. The property relations are structurally fixed and eternal; as objects of social activity and upheaval they do not appear at all. "(p. 396)

The effects of modern authority are rationalized subordination, lack of independence and feelings of inferiority that have to be suppressed and sublimated. Under the pressure of the father, the child has to learn to attribute individual failure not to social causes, but to individual religious guilt or a lack of talent. Always looking for mistakes in oneself favors conservatism and willingness to make sacrifices for the wrong whole, power and leadership cult. Horkheimer even speaks of the emergence of an instinct of submission. On the one hand, a sensible upbringing could promote solidarity work and a thirst for knowledge. On the other hand, the relationship between coercion and leniency in upbringing is ultimately insignificant, since the structure of the bourgeois nuclear family already generates the instinct of submission: it puts the father in a position of power, which is also expressed in the decision for the carrot and against the stick. The son strives for this father ideal of the power and provider position and thereby reproduces it.

In addition to this aspect that promotes authority, the family also has an antagonistic relationship to authority. Internally, it is not exclusively organized in a competitive and market-like manner. On a small scale, she knows the common bourgeois interest in warding off danger. In addition, Horkheimer sees gender love and maternal care as positive community interests. Where the development and happiness of the other is wanted, the family represents an inkling of a better condition. Horkheimer refers to Hegel's concept of femininity as love for the whole person. In patriarchy, women are dependent and dominated in society and in the family. As a wife, she is economically and individually dependent on the husband's success in household and family, which is why her status quo makes her susceptible to conservatism: Resistance to society clings to concerns about family security. As a dependent, women also reproduce authoritarian conditions through their influence and role model function.

The monogamous patriarchal nuclear family also limits the sensuality of people: the sensuality of the parents takes place in secret, the children learn the prohibition of pleasure. The family continues to influence the children by influencing marriage and threatening disinheritance. Opposite images to this relationship of love, marriage and family in literature are Don Juan , who stands against the bourgeois loyalty and compulsory morality, and Romeo and Juliet , who stand against their families in the name of loyalty. Social institutions and authority are in a mutually reinforcing relationship. The attempt to establish a different education and social structure is possible, but under economic pressure it is associated with increasing difficulties. In 1936, Horkheimer saw the tendency that the economic crisis and National Socialism would reduce the importance of bourgeois institutions in general, the state would assume more authority functions itself, but the family would still exist.

The research report

The Horkheimer essay was the general part of the research report published in Paris in 1936 under the title Studies on Authority and Family . It also contained: the social psychological part by Erich Fromm , the history of ideas part by Herbert Marcuse and, in the second department, in addition to preliminary individual reports on surveys that have already been carried out: Economic- historical foundations of the development of family authority by Karl A. Wittfogel , contributions to a history of the authoritarian von Ernst family Manheim, The Right of the Present and Authority in the Family by Ernst Schachtel, Authority and Sexual Morality in the Free Bourgeois Youth Movement by Fritz Jungmann (d. I. Franz Borkenau ) as well as several literary reports by other authors.

Criticisms

  • In relation to the family, the child or son is almost always mentioned, specifics relating to the daughter do not appear. In the same way, the father is at the center of the analysis, the mother hardly appears. In general, Horkheimer reproduced a stereotypical gender image (which was even more applicable in 1936) - even if it was precisely this that was to be emphasized in the analysis of patriarchy .
  • Horkheimer hardly delimits his conception of reasonable authority from the criticized authority; rather, it remains underdetermined as a utopian contrast film.

literature

  • Max Horkheimer: "Authority and Family", in: Collected Writings , Volume 3: Writings 1931–1936, Frankfurt a. M. 1988. ISBN 3-10-031813-7
  • Max Horkheimer: “Letter to S. Fischer Verlag 1965 on the republication of the essays of the 1930s / 1940s”, in: Collected writings , Volume 3: Writings 1931–1936, Frankfurt a. M. 1988. ISBN 3-10-031813-7
  • Studies on Authority and Family. Research reports from the Institute for Social Research. Librairie Félix Alcan: Paris 1936.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Studies on Authority and Family. Research reports from the Institute for Social Research. Librairie Félix Alcan Paris 1936.
  2. ↑ Max Horkheimer: The current situation of social philosophy and the tasks of an institute for social research. Frankfurt University Speeches, No. XXXVII, Frankfurt am Main, 1931, p. 13
  3. ↑ Max Horkheimer: Foreword. [New York April 1935]. Studies on Authority and Family. Research reports from the Institute for Social Research. Librairie Félix Alcan Paris 1936.