I never wanted to take part

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never wanted to take part is a book by Leo Löwenthal . It consists essentially of interviews with Löwenthal by the sociologist Helmut Dubiel . The subtitle is accordingly “An autobiographical conversation”. The book (published in 1980) thus provides an intellectual picture of Löwenthal's biography of the century (born in 1900), which was later to be expanded to include the collapse of real socialism (Löwenthal died in 1993).

Contemporary historical context

Löwenthal's book is related to some contemporary history topics. The book was written in 1979, about 10 years after the student movement of 1968 , which rediscovered critical theory in the first place and made a significant contribution to its greater popularity. In terms of time, the book is also related to publications that took the ten-year gap as an occasion to look back on 1968. This constellation also shapes Löwenthal's book. In the experience of the interviewer Helmut Dubiel (born 1946), 1968 and the years thereafter play an essential role. Dubiel himself had also dealt intensively with the organization and methodology of critical theory in a recently published publication. This topic, in turn, was largely triggered by a thesis put forward by Jürgen Habermas that critical theory lacks a consistent methodology (Habermas had formulated his assessment on the occasion of the death of Theodor W. Adorno ).

The particular relevance of Löwenthal's statements and his explanation of some essential positions of critical theory emerges against this background. Because of the context, some of it works like a corrective to popular interpretations of critical theory.

construction

The main part of the book contains interviews with Löwenthal, which are chronologically structured in 5 biographical and thematic stations ( Weimar Republic - Institute for Social Research - Voice of America - Scientific Biography - Berkeley ). In addition, the book contains in the appendix a detailed overview of Löwenthal's publications as well as some letters written by and to Löwenthal, which he himself selected to illustrate his intellectual development.

Non-participation as the core of critical theory

The non-participation mentioned in the title of the book goes back to a formulation by Löwenthal, which has summed up his mental attitude - representative of the attitude of critical theory - since the 1920s: "I never wanted to 'participate', I have always experienced myself as someone, who was 'against'. Very early on, at university in 1920, I was always 'against', that was my basic stance. [...] For the most part, we did not even go to lectures because it all seemed to us to be a bourgeois swindle and ideology and we were expecting the great social revolution soon. "

For Löwenthal, not participating is a way of thinking and living that is at the core of critical theory. He emphasizes three elements in particular:

  • Nonconformism and independence in the sense of a critical distance from intellectual currents that are currently in vogue, and from an attitude that focuses on one's own career planning and adapts the intellectual orientation accordingly
  • A criticism of the existing society - or as it is also called - "the existing", which refrains from describing supposed alternatives in a positive way, since alternatives can only be created through a practice that changes society
  • A revolutionary way of thinking oriented towards social change

With this understanding, Löwenthal sees critical theory fundamentally as a further development of Marx's social theory that incorporates new historical experiences. This includes Löwenthal z. For example, the Russian October Revolution of 1917 , which was initially viewed positively , followed by the expectation of a world revolution and its failure, and finally the catastrophic development of the Soviet Union up to the Moscow show trials and the Hitler-Stalin Pact .

On the other hand, Löwenthal also emphasizes that in contrast to Marx's Critique of Political Economy , Critical Theory primarily dealt critically with culture (e.g. literature, philosophy, music) and everyday social consciousness. For the analysis of the interaction of the economic fundamentals with culture and everyday consciousness, findings from psychoanalysis were integrated.

Löwenthal points out that the representatives of the critical theory were able to recognize certain social tendencies at an early stage due to their independent, critical orientation of their thinking. For example, B. Löwenthal in an essay about the Norwegian writer Knut Hamsun's fascist sentiments, which would only become publicly known years later. And as early as 1937, Horkheimer assumed that there would be an alliance between Hitler and Stalin .

No Frankfurt school

A point of contention between the views of Löwenthal and the interviewer Helmut Dubiel is the question of the organization of the representatives of critical theory and the methodological approach of critical theory. Dubiel sees Max Horkheimer - as director of the Institute for Social Research - as a kind of science manager who assigns roles and tasks to the other employees, such as Adorno, Löwenthal, Marcuse , Pollock , who are spread across different disciplines, and who provides a "research technique" with which to progress in the development of the theory should be made measurable. Löwenthal contradicts this by emphasizing that the cooperation was based on common interests and a common critical perspective, but without a formal organization with explicitly assigned roles. A comparison of the texts to a certain style was not carried out by a certain research system, but only afterwards in the course of the preliminary editorial work for the publications. In this context, Löwenthal also emphasizes the open, strongly essayistic and aphoristic writing style, which should be consciously different from thinking in hierarchically structured systems. For Löwenthal, this type of work and research is closely related to the non-conformist orientation of the representatives of critical theory. They saw themselves in opposition to the prevailing teaching company and not as the founder of a new school with a correspondingly formalized and well-organized company.

Löwenthal is also reminiscent of a designation that has been forgotten compared to the title " Frankfurt School ", which is established in the historiography of critical theory in particular, but is by no means undisputed . This does not at all fit the meaning of a school - namely the Café Marx, with which the institute for social research was referred to in the academic milieu.

Critical Theory and Practice

In particular through the student movement of 1968 and in the period afterwards, the relationship between critical theory and practice was often discussed, whereby “practice” meant quite different things. Löwenthal goes u. a. responded to the accusation that critical theory had given up practice in terms of social emancipation . While Marx still viewed the proletariat as the actor of revolutionary change on the fringes of society, the situation in contemporary society has fundamentally changed: from Löwenthal's point of view, the proletariat has become an integral part of society and has an interest in it itself Maintenance. A critical theory of society must take this new historical situation into account.

Löwenthal is opposed to practice in the sense of an “alternative life” in everyday life within the existing society, with which pre-industrial practices are revalued. Topics addressed by Dubiel such as “ holistic medicine, the macrobiots , rural communes, bake one's own bread again, home births” are, from Löwenthal's point of view, artificial activities that are ineffective for the whole of society and that are also not harmless as they would bring with them an anti-modern mentality who want to turn back the wheel of history.

Löwenthal also thinks little of allegations associated with the designation “ Grand Hotel Abgrund ”: that someone who expresses radical criticism does not have to practice a comfortable, but a modest lifestyle in the face of the misery criticized. Löwenthal counters this that even an ascetic or proletarian lifestyle does nothing to improve the fate of others. On the contrary, the beautiful life is something that should not be abolished, but should be made possible for everyone and, moreover, also promote the ability to differentiate.

Quotes

“I remember often hearing the accusation in intellectual and personal conversations that you can't always be critical, you have to be constructive from time to time. We were always the scandal, the troublemaker. You know the saying of Kästner who impaled this unbearable stupidity: “Mr. Kästner, where is the positive?” Exactly the negative was the positive, this awareness of not taking part, of refusing; the relentless analysis of the existing, as far as we were competent in each case, that is actually the essence of critical theory. "

“Just recently, in one of my seminars, one of my most talented students attacked our group, in the sense that we actually only took one Mount Olympus position. We would have completely separated from Marxism and lost sight of reality. I replied that with this criticism he was missing the point of critical theory. We have not left the practice, but the practice has left us. I have often spoken about what a great trauma the development in the Soviet Union and that of the Communist Party meant for us. Much more important, of course, is the insight that the idea of ​​the revolutionary potential of the proletariat has historically become obsolete; this was particularly evident here in America and now all over the world. Here and in most of Western Europe, the so-called proletariat is a petty-bourgeois group that has a massive interest in the status quo. "

“I do not sympathize with the proletariat. Marx also did not sympathize with the proletariat, the proletariat should stop! Proletarian forms of life, insofar as they still exist, are hardly worth emulating. The post-proletarian, I mean the petty-bourgeois forms of life, are not much better anywhere, but in their essential core they imitate forms of life of the upper class. Some upper class members are now starting to imitate the vulgar styles of the upper petty bourgeoisie. I absolutely reject that. I would say straight away that luxury is the anticipation of utopia. Perhaps Marx could have said some things better and more differentiated if things hadn't been so bad for him. "

output

  • Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel , Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 (= Edition Suhrkamp , Volume 14).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See e.g. B. Peter Mosler, What we wanted, what we became. Student revolt - ten years later, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Hamburg 1977, ISBN 3-499-14119-1
  2. ^ Helmut Dubiel, science organization and political experience. Studies on early critical theory, Suhrkamp pocket book science, Frankfurt am Main 1978, ISBN 3-518-07858-5
  3. ↑ Claus Grossner, The Last Judge of Critical Theory? , in: Die Zeit, March 13, 1970
  4. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , p. 46f.
  5. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 47f., 55, 75f., 78-80
  6. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 39f., 44f., 47, 55, 83f., 86f.
  7. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 60-62, 82f., 84
  8. ↑ Leo Löwenthal, Knut Hamsun. On the prehistory of authoritarian ideology, in: Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, edited by Max Horkheimer, Volume 6, 1937, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag (dtv reprint), Munich 1980, ISBN 3-423-05975-3
  9. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 96, 86f.
  10. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 77, 85, 92-100. Similar has z. B. Horkheimer also expressed (preface by Max Horkheimer, in: Martin Jay, Dialektische Phantasie. The history of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923 - 1950, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1981 (American original edition 1973), translated by Hanne Herkommer and Bodo von Greiff, ISBN 3-596-26546-0 , p. 9).
  11. ↑ Martin Jay, Dialectical Fantasy. The history of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923-1950, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1981 (American original edition 1973), translated by Hanne Herkommer and Bodo von Greiff, ISBN 3-596-26546-0 ; Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School. History - Theoretical Development - Political Significance, dtv Wissenschaft, Munich 1993 (first edition 1986), ISBN 3-423-04484-5
  12. ^ Detlev Claussen, Farewell to yesterday. Critical Theory Today, Buchladen Bettina Wassmann, Bremen 1986, ISBN 3-926182-00-8 , p. 6
  13. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 47, 70
  14. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , p. 78f.
  15. ↑ See e.g. B. as an inventory of the alternative scene: Alternative life, edited by Robert Jungk and Norbert R. Mullert, Signal-Verlag Frevert, Baden-Baden 1980, ISBN 3-7971-0201-1
  16. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 149-151
  17. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 222-226
  18. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , p. 80 (Chapter 2, Institute for Social Research)
  19. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , p. 78f. (Chapter 2, Institute for Social Research)
  20. ↑ Leo Löwenthal: I never wanted to take part. An autobiographical conversation with Helmut Dubiel. edition suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-11014-4 , pp. 225f. (Chap. 5, Berkeley)