The Origins of Studien über Autorität und Familie
A report on the early history of the Institute for Social Research's Studien über Autorität und Familie project
Prefatory Remarks
This text is a relatively rough report on some ongoing research. I would like to look into the other archives of the Frankfurt School to explain some of the gaps I have encountered, but my situation presently militates against this possibility. This report is complementary to my forthcoming essay on Erich Fromm’s early work, to be published in the first volume of our e-journal later this year. In that essay I will analyze the way that psychoanalysis provided both a framework for conceptualizing different levels of mediation in society and a framework of micro-foundational processes, concepts, and mechanisms for explaining larger-scale social phenomena. The focus of this blog post is the pre-history of the Institute’s Studien über Autorität und Familie, but before getting into that, I would like to relate a few interesting findings related to Fromm that are only tangentially related to the Studien. I’d also like to thank Rainer Funk for allowing the use of quotations from the archival materials here and assisting me with the interpretation of certain documents.
The Erich Fromm collection at the New York Public Library was deposited by Fromm in 1949 or 1950. It is accessible to the public so long as you first sign up for the NYPL system. The collection, or at least the part consisting of text, has been scanned into microfilm for preservation and easy access. The material ranges from early studies on the sociology of Jews to preliminary drafts and notes for mature works like Escape from Freedom (1941) and Man for Himself (1947). The correspondence preserved in this collection is unfortunately rather fragmentary, mostly being the letters received by Fromm. Unfortunately I was only able to visit the NYPL for a few hours and therefore had to carefully select documents to scan for further analysis. Luckily, I was able to find and scan several documents of interest in the brief time I had. (One document I found was a short essay in German on Marx’s value theory which had the letters “MH” at the top, possibly indicating that it was written by Max Horkheimer. I was, unfortunately, unable to scan this document, and hope to have a chance to do so in the future.)
A number of interesting documents related to Wilhelm Reich are present in the archive, specifically in the Reich section of the correspondence. It seems that Reich and Fromm carried on a spirited debate about the merits of social psychology (or Massenpsychologie, as Reich still called it) in relation to individual psychology and sociology. Fromm believed a psychoanalytic social psychology to be possible and desirable, whereas Reich was skeptical about the possibility of applying concepts developed for individual psychology to society. Reich at one point requested Fromm to pass an essay onto the editors of the Institute’s Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung for publication, but ultimately nothing came of this. Reich later requested the manuscript be returned. In the end, Reich would write a handful of reviews for the ZfS, however.
1 The Background of the Project
The anthology volume Studien über Autorität und Familie was published as the fifth volume of the Schriften des Instituts für Sozialforschung in 1936. It carried the subtitle Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung. The book is split into three (really more like four) divisions: Theoretische Entwürfe über Autorität und Familie, Erhebungen, and Einzelstudien + Literaturberichte. Max Horkheimer edited the first part, Erich Fromm the second, and Leo Löwenthal the third. Two of these divisions, Erhebungen and Einzelstudien are extremely fragmentary and are probably the reason that the disclaimer-like subtitle was added to the volume, although, as we will see, the entire structure of the published book was not the original intention.
The study of German workers which was partially included in the Studien was first imagined in 1929, begun in 1930, and was announced to the public by Horkheimer in 1932. Work on it would continue past the publication of the Studien in 1936, only stopping in 1938 as the relations of the study’s director, Erich Fromm, to the rest of the Institute became increasingly strained.
The Studien project had probably started in earnest by late 1933 (see footnote in ZfS II, p. 413), as the Institute (or rather Friedrich Pollock acting independently on behalf of the Institute, see Wiggershaus 1995, p. 150) had initiated several empirical studies on the family from their temporary base in Switzerland around the same time. Serious planning for the project seems to have started in 1934, however. This second, more serious phase saw the commissioning of essays from members and associates of the Institute as well as the holding of internal “seminar-style” discussions (see Studien p. IX) intended to produce “schemas” (see below) that could guide the writing process and inform the overall structure of the volume. According to Horkheimer, the main participants in these discussions were Fromm, Marcuse, Löwenthal, Wittfogel, and himself.
2 Documents from 1934
In the Erich Fromm collection of the New York Public Library, an early outline of Studien is preserved alongside a few other documents related to the project, such as early drafts of Fromm’s “Social-Psychological Part” essay, an outline of Horkheimer’s theoretical essay, and a full typescript of Wittfogel’s essay “Wirtschaftsgeschichtliche Grundlagen der Entwicklung der Familienautorität.” A number of letters related to the project are also preserved, such as one in which Löwenthal denigrates Marcuse’s contributions, an evaluation which was apparently common amongst the directors of the project.
These documents offer a fascinating insight into the working process of the Institute for Social Research and show a more ambitious and systematically structured version of the Studien that was never realized. In this section, I will review several documents individually to demonstrate the insights that can be gleaned from them.
2.1 The 1934 Outline of “The Family in Bourgeois Society”
This document is a file folder (a Soennecken’s Schnellhefter) dated to the end of June 1934 labeled “Notizen über den Stand der Untersuchungen über die Familie” (Notes on the Status of the Investigations into the Family) containing five distinct documents: two pages of “preliminary notes” (Vorbermerkungen); an outline of an “anthology volume” (Sammelband) serving as the first of a series—the text is unclear but it seems to refer to a series of books on the family—to be titled “Die Familie in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft;” a draft relating several conceptual “schemas” (Schemata) to be used for literature reviews (Chapter 2 of the book; see below for further details); another set of conceptual schemas for Chapter 4 (Ueberbau. A. Staat und Recht); and a preliminary report on the results of an empirical sociological study of experts (Erich Fromm Papers b. 7 f. 5 / r. 8; cf. Studien p. 292 ff). It is unsigned and contains no sentences in first person. Moreover, a number of different styles of handwriting appear throughout the document, likely indicating that multiple members of the IfS redacted/amended it. This hypothesis agrees with the consensus in the literature on the internal practices of the IfS. If I were forced to put a name to the document, I would probably assign it to Löwenthal or Pollock, although the content of it was undoubtedly arrived at by a collective process regardless of who actually operated the typewriter.
The project seems to be divided into volumes, with the first entitled “Beiträge und Materialien mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Autoritätsprobleme in der Familie” (Contributions and Materials with Special Attention to the Problem of Authority in the Family), although this could also be the subtitle of a single anthology volume titled “Die Familie in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft.” It is further divided into three unlabeled parts which, based on Horkheimer’s notes, I designate as an introductory part, a theoretical part, and an empirical part. Each part was made up of several chapters, while each chapter had a director (Leiter), any number (often zero) of participants (Mitarbeiter), and any number (also sometimes zero) of texts designated with the somewhat ambiguous word vorliegend, the nature of which designation more is discussed below. The things designated as vorliegend seem to mostly be ongoing or already completed texts and pieces of research, although some are noted to have merely been ordered (bestellt) and at least one was “lacking manuscript.” Some of the things listed under vorliegend, such as “Talk H[orkheimer] in Centre” (Rede H. im Centre, see above image), are more mysterious. It is possible that this particular phrase refers to some record of a discussion involving or lecture by Horkheimer which took place in the Centre de Documentation of the École Normale Supérieure of Paris, whose director Celestin Bouglé had previously offered to house the Institute in the offices of said Centre (see Jay 1996, p. 30; Studien, p. VII).
The introductory part was to include a chapter by Horkheimer which would serve “das Programm der ganzen Serie zu entwikkeln [sic]” (to develop the program of the entire series). Also covering the “Bedeutung des Problems in der Gesamttheorie” (the meaning of the problem in the theory as a whole) and a “Diskussion der anzuwendenden Methoden” (discussion of the methods to be used).
The second and final chapter of the first part was to be a survey of the literature on the family from several major countries. This projected section was completed and incorporated into the final version with some modifications.
The more interesting difference comes into focus with the second projected part of the work. It was to be divided according to the Marxist categories of base and superstructure, with one chapter (Chapter 3) on the economic infrastructure (Unterbau) in relation to the family directed by Friedrich Pollock and Andries Sternheim. Registered here are essays by Andries Sternheim and Hilde Weiss, among some other texts of an unclear nature. Abstracts of the essays by Sternheim and Weiss appeared in the final version of the book.
This chapter was to be followed by three chapters on the superstructure covering “Staat und Recht;” “Erziehung (Theorie und Praxis);” and “Besondere Ideologien (Religion und Kunst)” (State and Law; Education (Theory and Practice); Specific Ideologies (Religion and Art)).” The first of these chapters—officially Chapter 4 of the work as a whole—is of especial interest for the referenced essay on the family in socialist political theory by Hans Mayer. In the published version, this was reduced to a review of the specifically anarchist literature on authority and the family. Of two further referenced essays on politics by sociologist Willi Strzelewicz, only one (“Aus den familienpolitischen Debatten der deutschen Nationalversammlung 1919”) was included—albeit as an abstract—in the final version. The only essay to be salvaged and published in full from this projected chapter was Ernst Schachtel’s “Das Recht der Gegenwart und die Autorität in der Familie.” The chapter was to be directed by Ernst Schachtel and Friedrich Pollock.
The chapter on education was to be directed by Löwenthal and focus on “Die Dialektik der Relation Familie – Staat,” (the dialectic of the relation family-state) especially as analyzed through the political history of the past few decades. An essay by Franz Borkenau on the German youth movement was referenced and later actually published in full under the pseudonym Fritz Jungmann in the final version, while reports on different countries were to be made by various Institute associates, apparently including Karl and Hedda Korsch. None of those reports seem to have materialized in the form projected, or at least they were not published.
The final chapter on the superstructure has a very barebones outline and mentions only two projected (and not yet available) contributions: an essay by Walter Benjamin on the “Theorie der Familie in der Belletristik” (Theory of the Family in the Belles Lettres) and one by Erich Fromm on “Katholische und Protestantische Anschauungen” (Catholic and Protestant Outlooks). The demand for an essay on the theory of the family in the Belletristik was apparently so urgent that the work of another author, Curt Wormann, on the topic ended up being included in the final version. The author of the document questions if this chapter should not be incorporated into chapter two (literature review) and makes a note of considering commissioning an essay on the family in “Schundlitertur”—a German word referring to something like pulp literature—from Benjamin.
The second part was to be closed out by Chapter 7 (“Psychologie als Vermittlung,” directed by Fromm) and an “excursus” on “the family of primitives.” Chapter 7 was to include an essay by Fromm on authority, while the excursus was made up of either one or two essays on “Autorität bei primitiven Stämmen” (Authority in Primitive Tribes) written by Fromm and Paul Honigsheim either collaboratively or separately (the document has Honigsheim’s name listed under Fromm’s with the comment “dto,” that is, presumably, “ditto”). Fromm had a growing interest in ethnography in general and the work of Margaret Mead in particular around this time. In a note, the author of the document questions if these two chapters should not be incorporated into the first part of the book.
The only worked out chapter of the third part (Chapter 8) was to be concerned with “Die Enqueten und ihre Auswertung,” (The Enquiries and their Evaluation) encompassing at least four different survey-based studies. Besides reports by Sternheim, Käthe Leichter, and the pair of Fromm and Schachtel, this chapter was to incorporate an explanation of the Institute’s approach to empirical research. In the final version, Fromm wrote a short essay on this topic (Studien, p. 231 ff).
I have just given a pretty thorough list of all the texts etc. referenced as vorliegend, but I have not yet interrogated the meaning of this word in relation to the content of the projected volume. There are two possibilities: either each chapter was intended to be made up of separate texts/essays covering research by different authors, or each chapter was to be a newly written synthesis of the pieces of research which are marked as vorliegend. In favor of the latter interpretation is the remark about Chapter 2 that “when all the individual manuscripts [i.e. literature reviews] are ready, it will be probably be necessary not merely to redact them, but rather to combine them into one whole report.” A similar remark is made about of Chapter 3: “the work which is presently ready is for this purpose [i.e. the investigation into how economic factors effect the family] usable only as raw material.” There is also Horkheimer’s comment in the foreword to the published Studien, dated April 1935, “most of the reports on different subjects and countries, the monographs on seemingly distant problems, were not originally destined for publication” (Studien, p. XI; my emphasis). On this interpretation of the document, the Studien was originally intended to be a synthetic work which did not merely report on the research of the Institute but forged this research into a systematic whole structured and presented on the basis of certain fundamental categories from Marxism. (The only text from the Institute which achieves something even remotely like this hypothetical collaborative-synthetic form is the much later Aspects of Sociology (1956) which was credited to the Institute as a whole but written mainly by Heinz Maus, Hermann Schweppenhäuser, Ernst Kux, and Johannes Hirzel, all of whom were students of Adorno and Horkheimer). If this interpretation is correct, then the three long theoretical essays by Horkheimer, Fromm, and Marcuse may represent the only ‘synthetic’ chapters which had achieved completion by the time the book had to go to the press. Moreover, this interpretation would lend some evidence to the idea of Helmut Dubiel that the Institute’s theoretical practice was structured around a dialectic of empirical social research (Forschung) and theoretical presentation (Darstellung), although the dialectic implicit in this document does not correspond exactly to Dubiel’s reconstruction (see Part II in Dubiel 1985). (In my opinion, Dubiel was absolutely correct that there was a dialectic of research and presentation at work, but I disagree strongly with the way he attempted to reconstruct this dialectic.) I should be clear that no matter which interpretation is adopted, the document makes it clear that a more systematic structure was originally planned for the book in any case. The question is mainly the degree of systematicity, although the difference between a systematic categorization (and partial revision) of already finished texts and the synthetic re-presentation of their research-content in an integrated form is a difference which implies a dialectical transition from quantity to quality. I myself am not sure which interpretation I find more likely.
Now that I have summarized all the content that was intended to be included in this volume and speculated about its structure, I will reveal how long Horkheimer planned this book to be. The first page of the outline clearly states that the entire thing is supposed to be “[circa] 30 Bogen” (about 30 sheets), with each part being 10 sheets. No matter how this is calculated (i.e., if 30 is multiplied by 16, 32, 64, etc.), the result is either that the final length of around 1,000 pages was planned from the start—in which case the author overestimated how much could be fit in 1,000 pages—or that the author initially projected a shorter length of perhaps 500 pages. Either way, the projected length is too short to accommodate his ambitious plans, as he himself related in the foreword to the volume: “The disproportion of the space available for the publication as a whole and the prepared [vorliegeden] scientific material has made itself especially palpable in the third division [of the book]” (Studien, p. XI). It is even more strange because the project does not seem to have been originally intended as a collection of mere Forschungsberichte (research reports) and abstracts of essays not printed in full. (One would wonder why so much editorial work would be needed for such a project.) For example, the essay by Fromm which was eventually repurposed as part of the first section of the final book went through multiple fairly different versions and was originally intended to be part of a chapter on “psychology as mediation,” not merely an essay which presents the problem of authority in the family social-psychologically (see Studien, p. IX). (Indeed Fromm’s essay is really the odd one out in the first section of the book in terms of content and overall ‘vibe.’) That said, the original sub/title “Contributions and Materials with Special Attention to the Problem of Authority in the Family” does not really testify to any particular form, and in all its vagueness could be interpreted as something similar to Forschungsberichte.
2.2 The Schemas
SCHEMAS FOR CHAPTER 2 (“ENTWURF FÜR DIE ANWEISUNGEN AN DIE LITERATURBERICHTERSTATTER”)
(1.) Entstehung und Geschichte der Familie
| Theorien | Beispiel | |
|---|---|---|
| a | statische 1. bürgerliche Monogamie2. ethnologische Monogamie | [bürgerliche Familie] Prototyp Pygmäen |
| b | evolutionistische 1. mutterrechtliche 2. sonstige | Promiskuität Kulturkreistheorie |
(2.) Funktion der Familie in der Gesellschaft
| Theorien | Beispiel | idealistisch | materialistisch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | biologisch-physiologisch | Fortpflanzung | Erhaltung der Menschheit | Befriedigung der Naturtriebe |
| b | ökonomische | Produktions- und Konsumptions- [Gemeinschaft?] | Mehrerin des Familienguts | Ausbeutung von Familienmitgliedern |
| c | soziologistisch | Familie [ausgezeichnet?] [gesellschaftlicher] Gebilde | Keimzelle der Gesellschaft | Keimzelle der Gesellschaft* |
| d | sozial-psychologistisch | Einordnung des Nachwuchs in [die] [bestehende?] Gesellschaft | Trägerin kultureller Traditionen | Vermittlerin von Ideologien |
| e | personal-psychologistisch | Schutz des Privatlebens | Heim als Reservat | Befriedigung gesellschaftlich nicht [befriedete] Triebe |
| f | religiöse | Trägerin religiöser Traditionen | Trägerin religiöser Traditionen | – – – – |
| g | philosophische | Objektivierung von Ideellem | Stufe des objektiven Geistes | – – – – |
*In the typescript the phrase “Keimzelle der Gesellschaft” is written so as to occupy both cells
(3.) Funktionen der einzelnen Familienmitglieder
| Familienmitglied | Beispiel |
|---|---|
| Vater | Verantwortung für die Kindererziehung |
| Mutter | Sorge für Sachgemässe Verwendung des Haushaltsguts |
| Kind | Verantwortung für das Alter der Eltern |
SCHEMAS FOR CHAPTER 2 — ENGLISH TRANSLATION (“Draft for the Instructions to the Writers of the Literature Reports”)
(1.) Emergence and History of the Family
| Theories | Example | |
|---|---|---|
| a | static 1. Bourgeois monogamy 2. Ethnological monogamy | [bourgeois family] prototype pygmies |
| b | evolutionist 1. matriarchal 2. other | Promiscuity Kulturkreis (culture-circle) theory |
(2.) Function of the Family in Society
| Theories | Example | idealist | materialist | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | biological-physiological | Reproduction | Continuance of the human race | Satisfaction of natural drives |
| b | economic | [community?] of production and consumption | Accumulator [Mehrerin] of family goods | Exploitation of family members |
| c | sociological | Family [displays?] [social] forms | Germ-cell of society | Germ-cell of society* |
| d | social-psychological | Incorporation of offspring [into] [existing?] society | Bearer of cultural traditions | Mediator/transmitter of ideologies |
| e | personal-psychological | Protection of private life | Home as a reserve | Satisfaction of socially not [satisfied] drives |
| f | religious | Bearer of religious traditions | Bearer of religious traditions | – – – – |
| g | philosophical | Objectivation of the ideal | Level of objective spirit | – – – – |
*In the typescript the phrase “Keimzelle der Gesellschaft” is written so as to occupy both cells
(3.) Functions of the individual Family Members
| Family member | Example |
|---|---|
| Father | Responsibility for the education of children |
| Mother | Care for the proper use of household goods |
| Child | Responsibility for the old age of parents |
Above are reproduced the three schemas for Chapter 2. The purpose of these schemas is explained in the Vorbemerkungen:
The goal of the heretofore completed discussions consists above all in the drafting of schemas for the individual chapters of the entire provisional structure; the individual assignments should go out to the participants on the basis of these schemas. They are a—relatively crude—means for [bringing about?] a common understanding of the goal of the work in the closest circle of participants as well for the creation of a certain methodological unity in the construction of the specific assigned projects.
Das Ziel der derzeitig geführten Besprechungen besteht vor allem darin, Schemata für die einzelnen Kapitel der vorläufigen Gesamtgliederung zu entwerfen; auf Grund dieser Schemata sollen dann die einzelnen Aufträge an die Mitarbeiter herausgehen. Sie sind ein—relativ rohes—Mittel, um der gemeinsamen Verständigung über das Ziel der Arbeit im engsten Kreise der Mitarbeit zu [erziehen, crossed out and corrected to dienen?] und andererseits eine gewisse methodische Einheitlichkeit in der Anlage der zu vergebenden Sonderarbeit herzustellen.
At the time that these texts were written, the discussions intended to produce these schemas had only reached up to the subject matter of the fourth projected chapter (Superstructure: State and Law), while the discussions about the third chapter (Economic Infrastructure) had not yet reached the point where a useful schema could be produced.
The schemas for Chapter 2 were intended to communicate the difference between a materialist and idealist approach to the family. The content is deliberately somewhat vague, as they were only meant to illustrate the general viewpoint, not provide strict guidelines. A particularly interesting (or amusing) part of this schema is the claim that the idea that the family’s function is to “preserve the human race” is idealism and the counterpart claim that according to materialism it merely functions to “satisfy natural drives.”
There are two schemas for Chapter 4 (“Familie, Recht und Staat”). One is numbered I, II, III. Section I of the first schema divides up different sources / areas of inquiry (Quellen), namely “private law/right;” “public law/right;” and “general doctrine of state (Staatslehre) and politics.” Section II of the first schema (“Gliederung nach Familienstruktur”) is like this:
- Familie als Ganzes
- Mann – Frau
- Eltern – Kinder
- Geschwister
- Aszendenz
Finally Section III of the first schema (“Gliederung nach Funktionen [Realität und Ideologie]):
- Biologische, Fortpflanzung, Bevölkerung
- Sexuelle, Sexualrecht und Einfluss auf Sexualmoral
- Erziehung, Einordnung des Nachwuchses in bestehende Gesellschaft, vermittelt durch
- Familie (
- Staat ( Verhältnis der 3 Faktoren zueinander
- Kirche (
- Ökonomische, Privateigentum, Arbeitsmarkt
The second schema for Chapter 4 is split into A, B, and C sections. A is labelled “Mittels des Rechts zur Regelung der Autorität in der Familie (berücksichtigt werden nur die modernen Kulturstaaten).” B is “Typenbildung (etwa extrem autoritativer Typ, kirchlich feudal konservativer Typ, liberalistisch bürgerlicher Typ, extrem autoritätsloser Typ).” C is “Ideologie und Realität.”
2.3 Early Drafts of Essays
I mentioned above that I found early versions of Horkheimer’s “Allgemeiner Teil” and Fromm’s “Sozial-psychologischer Teil” essays. I would like to comment on them very briefly.
Horkheimer’s text—titled “Die gesellschaftliche Bedeutung der Autorität in der gegenwaertigen Familie” and dated to October 16, 1934—appears in an early outline form. The form is very similar to Horkheimer’s earlier “Notes on Science and the Crisis,” a text which itself was merely an outline of a longer essay which Horkheimer was unable to complete in time for the first volume of the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung on account of an illness. After a page of methodological Vorbemerkungen, the draft is divided into four parts: “I. Die Bedeutung des Kittbegriffs fuer die Theorie der Gesellschaft;” “II. Allgemeines zur Bedeutung der Autorität;” “III. Die Autorität in der Familie;” and “IV. Die Dialektik der Autorität.” Each part is composed of numbered paragraphs, which are themselves made up of a mix of grammatically coherent sentences and fragments. Sections II and III mostly correspond to the versions found in the final essay. The final version of Section I was renamed to “Culture,” and the cement concept (which Horkheimer calls the “Inbegriff der kulturellen, sozialen, seelischen Maechte”) was largely abandoned. In the draft, Horkheimer contrasts “cement” to ideology, stating that the latter “ist falsches, gesellschaftliches Bewusstsein und gehoert eindeutig zu den hemmenden Momenten einer geschichtlichen Periode,” while cement “kann sowohl ein produktives Element sein,” etc. In any case, Horkheimer’s reasons for changing this part of the essay remain unclear to me. It seems unlikely that it was provoked by tensions between Fromm and Horkheimer or anything of that nature.
The reasons for changing Section IV are not so opaque, however. The outline of Section IV consists of a numbered list of three phrases, like so:
- Zerfallende Autorität
- Autorität und Revolution
- Die Familie in und nach der Revolution
Given the established practice of self-censorship in the writings of the Frankfurt School, it is understandable why this Section was deleted entirely, the final essay only having a passing gesture towards the end of the family built on a reference to Henry Lewis Morgan. The topic of “Autoriät und Revolution” was briefly covered in the final book in Marcuse’s “Ideengeschichtlicher Teil” essay with reference to Engels, Lenin, and even Stalin.
There are three drafts of Fromm’s essay. Two versions titled “Zur Psychologie der Einstellung zur Autorität” and another titled “Zur psychologischen Struktur der Autorität.” Parts of all of these were incorporated into the final version. The differences in terms of content between these early versions and the final essay are rather minor. There are a handful of overtly political passages that seem to have been excised, and a review of the psychological and psychoanalytic literature on authority was ultimately not included. This is the extent of the changes. I don’t analyze these documents in depth in my upcoming essay on Fromm, but I do reference them and quote from them.
3 Conclusions and Questions
These documents confirm several aspects of the Institute’s practices that have been reported in the literature. Political self-censorship makes an appearance, as does a process of theoretical coordination lead by Horkheimer. The ambitious scope of the outline also testifies to the tendency of Horkheimer et al to underestimate the difficulties involved in completing the projects they set for themselves, although this tendency was also be readily observed in other, posthumously published internal documents. Above all, the fundamentally Marxist orientation of the Institute is shown in these documents.
Below is a table which shows the fate of all of the texts mentioned in the outline, whether they made it into the final version in a form similar to what is described or implied by the outline, and so on. Many of the texts eventually included in the Einzelstudien section of the published book do not appear at all in the 1934 outline.
| Text | Appears in book? (Y = yes; A = abstract; N = no; D = different author; R = substantially revised) |
|---|---|
| Horkheimer: The Problem | YR |
| Marcuse: Historical Essay | Y(R?) |
| Marcuse: Report on German Sociology | Y |
| Report on Nazi Sociology | DY (-> Meusel) |
| Bouglé-Schüler: Report on French Sociology | DY (-> Honigsheim) |
| Rumney: Report on English Sociology | Y |
| Report on American Sociology | DA (-> Calhoun) |
| Sternheim: Economy and the Family | YA |
| Weiss: Conjuncture and Family | YA |
| Pollock: Economy | N |
| Schachtel: Family and Law | Y |
| Schachtel: Authority and Law | YR? (probably partially incorporated into the final essay, which covers law, family, and authority) |
| Strzelewicz: Family in political programs | N |
| Strzelewicz: Family in the German national convention | YA |
| Mayer: Family in socialist theory and political programs | YR (revised to be about anarchism in particular) |
| Borkenau: Youth movement | Y (published under the pseudonym Fritz Jungmann) |
| Löwenthal/Karsen: Report on education in Germany | N |
| Leichter: Report on education in Switzerland | N |
| Leichter: Report on education in Austria | DY (-> Jahoda-Lazarsfeld) |
| Piaget-Schüler: Report on education in France | N |
| Karl Korsch: Report on Education in England | N |
| Hedda Korsch: Report on Education in Scandinavia | N |
| Benjamin: Family in Belles Lettres | DA (-> Wormann) |
| Fromm: Catholics and Protestants | N |
| Fromm: Authority | YR |
| Fromm: Authority in Primitive Tribes | N or DY (-> Wittfogel) |
| Honigsheim: Authority in Primitive Tribes | N or DY (-> Wittfogel) |
A number of problems are also posed by the difference between the 1934 and 1936 versions of the project. Which interpretation of its form is correct? Why was so much of the political content scrapped? Was this the result of circumstance or did pragmatic motivations enter into it? Why was the conceptual-thematic organization of the material abandoned? To what extent were the “schemas” of the materialist approach to the family drawn up by Horkheimer imposed by the editors/directors on the individual contributors? (Was that extent a matter of policy or the result of organizational-technical constraints?) Does the relative dearth of economic material (nothing by Pollock, Weiss’s essay only as an abstract) indicate that the difficulties mentioned by Horkheimer in the Vorbermerkungen persisted throughout 1934 and 1935, leading to an inability to synthesize a coherent viewpoint on the contemporary economy? Was such an inability symptomatic of a larger problem? Horkheimer claims (Studien p. X) in the 1935 preface to the final version that Pollock had drafted an essay on the economic aspects of the problem of authority in the family, but no such essay appears in the 1934 outline of the book. (Unless, of course, one adopts the ‘synthetic’ interpretation of the 1934 outline).
In the main, these questions can be answered by claiming that either organizational and technical issues impeded the more ambitious initial outline or that political and theoretical changes occurred between 1934 and 1936 which made Horkheimer and the other editors significantly overhaul their design. I am more partial to the former kind of answer. Some of the alterations and deletions, above all the removal of the section on revolution in Horkheimer’s theoretical essay, strike me as politically motivated, but most do not. Definitive answers to the questions posed by this preliminary research can only be answered on the basis of further archival work. Unfortunately, few scholars were interested enough in this work to ask the members of the Institute about its genesis while they were still around.
Bibliography
The Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung is cited as (ZfS [volume in roman numerals], [page number]). The Erich Fromm Papers at the New York Public Library are cited as (Erich Fromm Papers b. [box number], f. [file number] / r. [microfilm reel number]; [title of document], [page or section number]).
Dubiel, Helmut. Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory. TR. Benjamin Gragg. MIT Press, 1985.
Jay, Martin. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950. U of California Press, 1996.
Institut für Sozialforschung. Studien über Autorität und Familie: Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung. Dietrich zu Klampen Verlag, 1963. (reprint of original 1936 edition).
— Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung
Wiggershaus, Rolf. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. Tr. Michael Robertson. MIT Press, 1995.