Adorno

The Institute of Social Research 135

His intention was to exploit more systematically the theoretical and
methodological advances in the social sciences. The very title of the
public address he gave in January 1931 to mark the assumption of his
duties as director – ‘The Present Position of Social Philosophy and the
Tasks Facing an Institute of Social Research’ – indicated the change in
research priorities. At a number of points, Horkheimer’s argument
touched on the same themes that Adorno was to address in his own
inaugural lecture three months later. It is of interest, therefore, to look
at the similarities and differences. What were the relevant questions for
the social philosopher who was about to take over the research appar-
atus of an entire institute, and how did he conceive of its organization?
Horkheimer begins by defining the future focus of the institute’s re-
search interests: the ‘question of the connection between the economic
life of society, the psychological development of individuals and the
changes in the realm of culture in the narrower sense (to which belong
not only the so-called intellectual elements such as science, art and
religion, but also law, customs, fashion, public opinion, sports, leisure
activities, lifestyle, etc.).’^12 The emphasis of future research in the insti-
tute would lie, on the one hand, on the subjective, psychological factors
influencing the consciousness of social actors and, on the other hand,
the institutional and cultural aspects of society. In other words, so-
called superstructural elements were to be included in the research
programmes. In addition to the critical examination of the explanatory
power of materialist theory, Horkheimer stressed the need for ‘concrete
research into particular objects’, the results of which would act as an
important corrective to the rampant growth of ideological speculation
in the social sciences as well as to the corresponding notions of reality.
Future relations between philosophy and the individual disciplines should
not be concerned with the primacy of the one over the others, but
should be determined in Horkheimer’s view by the mutual ‘inter-
penetration’ of factual research and philosophical reflection.
What was needed was ‘to organize research projects stimulated by
contemporary philosophical problems, in which philosophers, socio-
logists, economists, historians and psychologists are brought together in
permanent collaboration.’^13 Horkheimer illustrated this programme of
philosophy-led social research with reference to a topic particularly close
to his own heart, and which actually became a core research interest of
the institute both then and later. This was the analysis of the relations
between objective class situation and consciousness, i.e., social position
and subjective attitudes. He was convinced that such relations could be
explored only on the basis of empirical material. In order to come by
the requisite empirical data he proposed no fewer than six different
methodological tools: together with the use of statistics and expert
reports, he thought it absolutely necessary to initiate dialogue between
experts, to conduct the content analysis of the politically and culturally
influential media, and, lastly, to analyse documents. In addition, he called