Editing Max Horkheimer (section)

==Thought==
{{Frankfurt School}}
Horkheimer's work is marked by a concern to show the relation between affect (especially suffering) and concepts (understood as action-guiding expressions of reason). In that, he responded critically to what he saw as the one-sidedness of both [[neo-Kantianism]] (with its focus on concepts) and ''[[Lebensphilosophie]]'' (with its focus on expression and [[World disclosure|world-disclosure]]). He did not think that either was wrong, but he insisted that the insights of each school on its own could not adequately contribute to the repair of social problems. Horkheimer focused on the connections between social structures, networks/subcultures and individual realities and concluded that we are affected and shaped by the proliferation of products on the marketplace. It is also important to note that Horkheimer collaborated with Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno, and Walter Benjamin.<ref name="oxfordreference.com"/>

===Critical theory===
Through [[critical theory]], a social theory focusing on critiquing and changing society, Horkheimer "attempted to revitalize radical social, and cultural criticism" and discussed authoritarianism, militarism, economic disruption, environmental crisis and the poverty of mass culture. Horkheimer helped to create critical theory through a mix of radical and conservative lenses that stem from radical Marxism and end up in "pessimistic Jewish transcendentalism".<ref name="Reason, Nostalgia 1985 pp. 160-181"/>

He developed his critical theory by examining his own wealth while witnessing the juxtaposition of the bourgeois and the impoverished. This critical theory embraced the future possibilities of society and was preoccupied with forces which moved society toward rational institutions that would ensure a true, free, and just life.<ref name="Held, David 1980">Held, David. 1980. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.</ref> He was convinced of the need to "examine the entire material and spiritual culture of mankind"<ref name="Reason, Nostalgia 1985 pp. 160-181"/> in order to transform society as a whole. Horkheimer sought to enable the working class to reclaim their power in order to resist the lure of fascism. Horkheimer stated himself that "the rationally organized society that regulates its own existence" was necessary along with a society that could "satisfy common needs".<ref name="Reason, Nostalgia 1985 pp. 160-181"/> To satisfy these needs, it reached out for a total understanding of history and knowledge. Through this, critical theory develops a "critique of bourgeois society through which 'ideology critique' attempted to locate the 'utopian content' of dominant systems of thought".<ref name="Elliott 1996">Elliott, Anthony and Larry Ray, ed. 1996. Key Contemporary Social Theorists. Malden, MA: Blackwell.</ref> Above all, critical theory sought to develop a critical perspective in the discussion of all social practices.<ref name="Held, David 1980"/>

=== Writing ===
====''Between Philosophy and Social Science''====
''Between Philosophy and Social Science'' appeared between 1930 and 1938, during the time the Frankfurt school moved from Frankfurt to Geneva to [[Columbia University]]. It included: "Materialism and Morality", "The Present Situation of Moral Philosophy and the Tasks of an Institute for Social Research", "On the Problem of Truth", "Egoism and the Freedom Movement", "History and Psychology", "A New Concept of Ideology", "Remarks on Philosophical Anthropology", and "The Rationalism Debate in Contemporary Philosophy". It also included "The Present Situation of Social Philosophy and the Tasks for an Institute of Social Research", "Egoism and Freedom Movements" and "Beginnings of the Bourgeois Philosophy of History". The essays within "Between Philosophy and Social Science" were Horkheimer's attempts to "remove the individual from mass culture, a function for philosophy from the [[commodification]] of everything".<ref name="G. Regier MLN 1995 pp. 953-957">W. G. Regier MLN, Vol. 110, No. 4, Comparative Literature Issue (Sep. 1995, pp. 953–957), Johns Hopkins University Press.</ref> Horkheimer was extremely invested in the individual. In one of his writings, he states, "When we speak of an individual as a historical entity, we mean not merely the space-time and the sense existence of a particular member of the human race, but in addition, his awareness of his own individuality as a conscious human being, including recognition of his own identity."<ref>Sica, Alan. 2005. "Social Thought: From the Enlightenment to The Present" (pp. 542–546). Pennsylvania State University: Pearson, Inc.</ref>

"The Present Situation of Social Philosophy and the Tasks for an Institute of Social Research" was not only included in this volume, but it was also used as Horkheimer's inaugural speech as director of the Frankfurt School. In this speech he related economic groups to the struggles and challenges of real life. Horkheimer often referenced human struggle and used this example in his speech because it was a topic he understood well.<ref name="G. Regier MLN 1995 pp. 953-957" />

"Egoism and Freedom Movements" and "Beginnings of the Bourgeois Philosophy of History" are the longest of the essays. The first is an evaluation of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Vico; the latter discusses the bourgeois control. In Beginnings of the Bourgeois Philosophy of History, Horkheimer explained "what he learned from the bourgeois rise to power and what of the bourgeois he thought was worth preserving.<ref name="G. Regier MLN 1995 pp. 953-957" />

The volume also looks at the individual as the "troubled center of philosophy." Horkheimer expressed that "there is no formula that defines the relationship among individuals, society and nature for all time".<ref name="G. Regier MLN 1995 pp. 953-957" /> To understand the problem of the individual further, Horkheimer included two case studies on the individual: one on Montaigne and one on himself.

==== ''Eclipse of Reason'' ====
{{Main|Eclipse of Reason (Horkheimer)}}
Horkheimer's book, ''[[Eclipse of Reason (Horkheimer)|Eclipse of Reason]]'', started in 1941 and published in 1947, is broken into five sections: Means and Ends, Conflicting Panaceas, The Revolt of Nature, The Rise and Decline of the Individual, and On the Concept of Philosophy.<ref name="oxfordreference.com" /> The ''Eclipse of Reason'' focuses on the concept of reason within the history of [[Western philosophy]], which can only be fostered in an environment of free, critical thinking while also linking positivist and [[Instrumental rationality|instrumental reason]] with the rise of fascism.<ref name="Elliott 1996" /> He distinguishes between [[objectivity (science)|objective]], [[Subjectivity|subjective]] and instrumental reason, and states that we have moved from the former through the center and into the latter (though subjective and instrumental reason are closely connected). Objective reason deals with universal truths that dictate that an action is either right or wrong. It is a concrete concept and a force in the world that requires specific modes of behavior. The focus in the objective faculty of reason is on the ends, rather than the means. Subjective reason is an abstract concept of reason, and focuses primarily on means. Specifically, the reasonable nature of the purpose of action is irrelevant – the ends only serve the purpose of the subject (generally self-advancement or preservation). To be "reasonable" in this context is to be suited to a particular purpose, to be "good for something else". This aspect of reason is universally conforming, and easily furnishes [[ideology]]. In instrumental reason, the sole criterion of reason is its operational value or purposefulness, and with this, the idea of truth becomes contingent on mere subjective preference (hence the relation with subjective reason). Because subjective/instrumental reason rules, the [[Ideal (ethics)|ideals]] of a society, for example [[democratic ideals]], become dependent on the "interests" of the people instead of being dependent on objective truths. Horkheimer writes, "Social power is today more than ever mediated by power over things. The more intense an individual's concern with power over things, the more will things dominate him, the more will he lack any genuine individual traits, and the more will his mind be transformed into an automation of formalized reason."<ref>Sica, Alan 2005. "Social Thought: From the Enlightenment to The Present" (pp. 542–546). Pennsylvania State University: Pearson, Inc.</ref>

Horkheimer acknowledges that objective reason has its roots in Reason ("[[Logos]]" in Greek) and concludes, "If by enlightenment and intellectual progress we mean the freeing of man from superstitious belief in evil forces, in demons and fairies, in blind fate – in short, the emancipation from fear – then denunciation of what is currently called reason is the greatest service we can render."<ref>Eclipse of Reason, Seabury Press, 1974 [1941]. p. 187.</ref><ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nuzj9LLrKlgC&q=max+horkheimer&pg=PA3 | title=Eclipse of Reason| isbn=978-0-8264-0009-3| last1=Horkheimer| first1=Max| date=1 January 1974| publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>

==== ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' ====
{{Main|Dialectic of Enlightenment}}
Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno collaborated to publish ''[[Dialectic of Enlightenment]]'', which was originally published in 1944. The inspiration for this piece came from when Horkheimer and Adorno had to flee Germany, because of Hitler, and go to New York. They went to America and "absorbed the popular culture"; thinking that it was a form of totalitarianism.<ref>Mann, Douglas. 2008. "Slamming Society: Critical Theory and Situationism." p. 106 in ''Understanding Society: A Survey of Modern Social Theory''. Don Mills<!--publisher-->; Oxford University Press.</ref> Nonetheless, Dialectic of Enlightenment's main argument was to serve as a wide-ranging critique of the "self-destruction of enlightenment".<ref name="Elliott 1996" /> The work criticized popular culture as "the product of a culture industry whose goal was to stupefy the masses with endless mass produced copies of the same thing" (Lemert). Along with that, Horkheimer and Adorno had a few arguments; one being that these mass-produced products only appear to change over time. Horkheimer and Adorno stated that these products were so standardized in order to help consumers comprehend and appreciate the products with little attention given to them. They expressed, "the result is a constant reproduction of the same thing" (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1993 [1944]). However, they also explain how pseudo-individuality is encouraged among these products in order to keep the consumers coming back for more. They argue that small differences in products within the same area are acceptable.<ref name="Lemert, Charles 2010">Lemert, Charles. 2010. ''Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings''. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.</ref>

The similar patterns found in the content of popular culture (films, popular songs and radio) have the same central message; "it's all linked to "the necessity of obedience of the masses to the social hierarchy in place in advanced capitalist societies".<ref>Mann, Douglas. 2008. "Slamming Society: Critical Theory and Situationism", p. 107 in ''Understanding Society: A Survey of Modern Social Theory''. Don Mills<!--publisher-->; Oxford University Press.</ref> These products appeal to the masses and encourage conformity to the consumers. In return, capitalism remains in power while buyers continue to consume from the industry. This is dangerous because the consumers' belief that the powers of technology are liberating, starts to increase. To support their claim, Horkheimer and Adorno, "proposed an antidote: not just thinking the relations of ''things'', but also, as an immediate second step, thinking ''through'' that thinking, self-reflexively." In other words, technology lacks self-reflexivity. Nonetheless, Horkheimer and Adorno believed that art was an exception, because it "is an open-ended system with no fixed rules"; thus, it could not be an object of the industry.<ref>Parker, Noel and Stuart Sim., ed. 1997. The A-Z Guide to Modern Social and Political Theorists. Prentice Hall: London. pp. 1–2.</ref>