Notes to pp. 133–136 517See Ulrike Migdal, Die Frühgeschichte des Frankfurter Instituts für
Sozialforschung, pp. 54 and 52ff.
7 As already mentioned, the reason was Weil’s wish as benefactor to influence
the academic direction of the institute.
8 Grünberg had been born in Romania in 1861 and had studied with
both Lorenz von Stein and Anton Menger. His Habilitation thesis was
concerned with agrarian reform in Bohemia. In his book Socialism and
Communism, which appeared in 1907, he subjected aspects of Marx’s
analysis of capitalism to a critical revision.
9 See Ulrike Migdal, Die Frühgeschichte des Frankfurter Instituts für
Sozialforschung, p. 76ff.
10 Ibid., p. 98ff.
11 Max Horkheimer, ‘Beginnings of the Bourgeois Philosophy of History’,
in Between Philosophy and Social Science, p. 373 (translation slightly
altered).
12 M. Horkheimer, ‘The Present Situation of Social Philosophy’, in Between
Philosophy and Social Sciences, p. 11.
13 Ibid., p. 9.
14 Ibid., p. 14.
15 Löwenthal (1900–1993) had worked at the institute since 1921, part-time
to begin with and then, four years later, as a senior assistant.
16 Erich Fromm (1900–1980), who had been born into a Jewish family in
Frankfurt, trained as a psychoanalyst after finishing his university studies.
As an expert on psychoanalysis, he was a member of the Institute of
Social Research from 1930 to 1939 where he strove to establish con-
nections between Marx and Freud. This applies particularly to his early
writings, which were republished in 1970 with the title Analytische
Sozialpsychologie und Gesellschaftstheorie.
17 Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) was the son of an assimilated Jewish
businessman from Berlin. He came relatively late to the circle around
Horkheimer and the Institute of Social Research via a recommendation
from Edmund Husserl. He was in charge of the Geneva branch of the
institute from 1932. Following his studies with Husserl, which he con-
cluded with a dissertation on the artist novel, he tried to forge a link
between Heidegger’s existential philosophy and Marx’s materialist phi-
losophy of history. He had planned a Habilitation dissertation on ‘Hegel’s
Ontology and the Theory of Historicity’ (1932), but because of his political
differences with Heidegger, who had embraced National Socialism, the
thesis was never submitted. Adorno reviewed the book version of the
thesis in the second issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. What
brought Marcuse close to the Horkheimer circle was his interest in Marx’s
theory of revolution on the basis of the latter’s Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts of 1844, which were first published in 1932.
18 We can describe his programme as that of an interdisciplinary materialism.
On this notion, see W. Bonß, Die Einübung des Tatsachenblicks; H. Dubiel,
Wissenschaftsorganisation und politische Erfahrung. For the differences
between Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s philosophical programmes, see Susan
Buck-Morss, The Origin of Negative Dialectics; Martin Jay, ‘Positive und
negative Totalität’, p. 67ff.
19 Adorno, ‘Die Aktualität der Philosophie’, GS, vol. 1, p. 340.