Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (29)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (30)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (30) (remove)
Keywords
- Frankfurt School (30) (remove)
Institute
- Philosophie (25)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (18)
- Institut für Sozialforschung (IFS) (14)
- Psychologie (2)
Eleştirel Kuram, 20. yüzyılın başlarında, daha sonra Frankfurt Okulu olarak bilinecek olan “Frankfurt Toplumsal Araştırmalar Enstitüsü” adı altında, bir grup akademisyen tarafından oluşturulmuş bir düşünce akımıdır. Bu düşünsel yaklaşımda, farklı dönemlerde farklı görüşler benimsenmiş olmakla birlikte, özünde pozitivizm ve araçsal akıl başta olmak üzere, modern kapitalist toplumsal düzen eleştirilmektedir. Aydınlanmanın, modernizmin ve modern aklın, kapitalizmin hizmetine girdiğinden yakınılmakta, bireylerin yaşamlarının kontrol edildiği ve onların belirli kalıplar içerisinde davranmaya zorlandığı bir sistemin varlığına karşı çıkılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, diğer kuramsal yaklaşımlardan ve ideolojilerden negatif ve eleştirel bir bakış açısına sahip olması nedeniyle farklılaşan Eleştirel Kuram’, Kamu Yönetimi disiplini ile ilişkilendirerek açıklanmaya çalışılacaktır. Kuramsal tartışmaların, analitik bir biçimde sistematize edilerek kurgulanmasıyla oluşturulacak metodoloji, çalışmanın inşa edilmesinde temel yöntem olarak kullanılacaktır.
The Frankfurt School has often been associated to the project of “marrying” Freud’s psychoanalysis with a Marxian critique of capitalist societies. This article offers however another version of the link between Critical Theory and psychoanalysis. After having briefly sketched the notion of a “critical theory of society”, the Author shows how a critique of modern capitalist societies and Freudian psychoanalysis actually meet at a “methodological” level for which the marriage between Hegel and Freud seems to be the relevant one. As a conclusion, the Author contrasts two kinds of social critique that can be found in the Frankfurt School, which are deeply linked with the first and the latest generation of the Frankfurt School considered in their relation to
psychoanalysis.
Axel Honneth associates his reading of Hegel with Winnicott's maturational development theory, in order to defend theses on intersubjectivity and recognition. That connection between philosophy and psychoanalysis is a target of criticism from two Hegelians: Joel Whitebook, a reader of Freud, and Judith Butler, a critical reader of Freud and Lacan. At the core of the controversy is Honneth's rejection of the work of the negative that is performed by Freud's death drive. We intend on following in the wake of that debate, and thus investigate the reasons and consequences for social criticism of Honneth's rejection of Freud's death drive.
Axel Honneth associa sua leitura de Hegel à psicologia da maturação de Winnicott de modo a defender teses sobre intersubjetividade e reconhecimento. Esta articulação entre filosofia e psicanálise é objeto da crítica de dois hegelianos: Joel Whitebook, leitor de Freud, e Judith Butler, leitora crítica de Freud e Lacan. No centro da polêmica está a rejeição honnethiana ao trabalho do negativo realizado pela pulsão de morte freudiana. Pretendemos seguir o rastro deste debate e investigar as razões e consequências para a crítica social da recusa do frankfurtiano à pulsão.
The events of 1968/69 initiated a dispute between Adorno and Marcuse over the (alleged) separation of theory and praxis. While Marcuse “stood at the barricades” Adorno sought recluse in the “ivory tower”. Marcuse and German students perceived Adorno’s move as departure from fundamental postulates of critical theory as laid down in Horkheimer’s 1937 essay. Adorno died amidst the process of clarifying his differences with Marcuse and thus the “unlimited discussions” between the two remain unfinished. This paper sets to examine how both Marcuse and Adorno remained dedicated to the unity of theory and praxis, albeit in different ways. I argue that Adorno did not separate theory and praxis; instead, he perceived the gap between critical theory and concrete historical situation. Adorno rejected simple and unreflective translation of theory into praxis. Hence his attempt to recalibrate critical theory. Marcuse’s and Adorno’s differences lie in their different evaluation of the student movement and this (mis)evaluation was context related. My second argument is that Marcuse/Adorno disagreement is partly caused by the absence of the two from the concrete historical context.
La Critique de la vision phénoménologique est une tentative de critique de la phénoménologie, à travers la Théorie Critique et la philosophie d’Emmanuel Lévinas, qui caractérise la phénoménologie comme une science eidétique. Nous proposons donc une bref histoire du concept de l’eidos, qui est compris comme un archétype idéal depuis le Platonisme. On aborde l’opposition du matérialisme et de l’idéalisme ancrée dans la Théorie des formes de Platon, l’hylémorphisme d’Aristote, et la Théorie matérialiste des simulacres de Lucrèce. La question substantielle : «matérialisme et/ou idéalisme »nous conduit aux principes de l’individuation, au formalisme et aux concepts de la réification. La phénoménologie de Husserl est née dans le Kulturkampf qui se caractérise par le déferlement du positivisme dans l’idéalisme. Sous cet angle, la phénoménologie est un certain tour de force idéaliste contre le positivisme. La phénoménologie essaie d’intégrer les courants contemporains de la philosophie allemande, et c’est ici et non en biologie que se situe la lutte pour la vie, selon Husserl. Le problème de la vision phénoménologique, en regard de la «race» comportant des significations qui ne sont pas particulièrement biologiques, est un problème qui remonte à Aristote. Selon lui, l’usage de l’eidos est aussi synonyme des catégories de genre et d’espèce. L’eidos d’Husserl inclut la conception d’Aristote, et se présente comme un moyen possible de construire un concept métaphysique de la race en dehors de la biologie. L’eidos en tant que type, tel qu’il est constitué dans la Lebenswelt , se caractérise finalement par la transformation de l’Umwelt en Heimwelt, dans lequel l’individu est passivement formé par la tradition, l’habitus, par terre et sang–un monde de la moyenne, de la « normalité ». Nous essayons de montrer, dans le processus de ce bouleversement irrationnel de la philosophie en Allemagne, le cas particulier et tragique du devenir de la phénoménologie de Husserl entre les mains de Heidegger, qui suggère une auto-limitation de la phénoménologie à la recherche d’un sens qui vise à l’unité du Dasein . Notre but ici est simple et radical : de même que Marx a montré que la philosophie de Hegel n’est rien d’autre que la collection des catégories de la philosophie bourg eoise en déclin, Lévinas et l’École de Francfort ont montré que la philosophie de Heidegger n’est rien d’autre qu’une poursuite de la philosophie hégélienne, mais à un niveau plus abstrait et aussi plus global.
The paper discusses the problem of the possible relation between psychoanalytic concepts and social critique in the perspective of Adorno's social thought. The title refers to Adorno's idea that psyche as individual spontaneity has now lost the weight it used to have in the liberal era. As a brief introductory remark, I clarify the status of theory for Adorno, i.e., the circularity between interpretation and description as grounded by the nature of the social object itself. Then I analyse his core idea of “social objectivity” as an impersonal mechanism which is at the same time produced by men and reified, heteronomous for them, and I argue that, for Adorno, the discontinuity existing between individual and society prevents an immediate shift of psychoanalytic concepts to the social world: the example of fascism clearly proves that the determining social forces today, while instrumentally exploiting deep psychical materials, are not themselves psychological. In the final part, I show how, for Adorno, psychology and sociology nevertheless need to be mediated with each other, while avoiding the superficial synthesis the so-called “revised psychoanalysis” aims to, and I point out some similarities between psychoanalytic practice and social critique as conceived by him.
The Methodological seminar was conducted by the scientific journal “Philosophy of Education” (Institute of Higher Education, National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine). The participants of the seminar were Prof. Panos Eliopoulos (University of Peloponnese, Greece), Lyudmyla Gorbunova, Mykhailo Boychenko, Olga Gomilko, Mariia Kultaieva, Volodymyr Kovtunets, Sergiy Kurbatov, Anna Laktionova, Tetiana Matusevych, Natalia Radionova, Iryna Stepanenko, Maya Trynyak and Viktor Zinchenko. On March 30, 2016, a methodological seminar was conducted at the Institute of Higher Education NAES of Ukraine. This seminar was devoted to the discussion of educational problems in the area of mass culture, and relative opportunities for the development of individuality. The report «Mass culture, education and the perspective of individuality» was made by Panos Eliopulos, professor of Peloponnese University, a member of journal’s «Філософія освіти. Philosophy of Education” editorial board. The scientists from the Institute of Higher Education, Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Skovoroda National Pedagogical University of Kharkiv participated in this event. Designated issues were observed primarily from the point of view of the Frankfurt School representatives, as well as representatives of modern critical philosophy of education and critical pedagogy. It was emphasized that T.Adorno’s ideas and ideas of other Frankfurt School members, which were developed in the middle of the last century, continue to be relevant in current socio-cultural contexts. The technical rationalism which became the rationalism of dominance in the context of technological civilization, could not provide the way toward the liberation of man and the development of his or her individuality. Market society with its instrumental rationality leads to homogenization and standardization of mass culture and as a result, we have a semi-education, leading to destruction of personality and social pathologies. The panelists agreed that semi-education reflects the crisis of ideals of education and training as far as a suspension of human emancipation process. Due to suspension of the creative process of a person formation, replacing it by the processes of stereotyping based on mimetic rationality, culture itself loses creative potential. The process of degradation of education and culture in the semi-education eventually leads to its destruction at theoretical level and the elaboration of the practice of anti-education. Only through returning of the individual and maintaining his or her social importance due to the tools of holistic education it is possible to overcome such stereotyping. For Frankfurt School members, and those who share their ideals, true education in its meta-theoretical sense becomes the important factor, contributing to the emancipation of society and individual. This idea is particularly important in the context of contemporary challenges and threats from instrumentalization of approaches to the process of transformation of the Ukrainian culture and education.
Promove-se uma recuperação do debate endógeno estabelecido entre alguns pensadores da Escola de Frankfurt, sobretudo no que se refere às diferentes perspectivas de análise sobre as relações entre ação e estrutura social, bem como as distintas percepções acerca das racionalidades (prática ou comunicativa) que organizam a conexão entre os indivíduos e a sociedade. Verifica-se o modo como os autores ligados à teoria crítica compreenderam as relações entre esferas subjetivas e estruturais em termos de possibilidades de emancipação social e de exercício de práticas deliberativas. Nessa perspectiva, considera-se uma cisão teórica estabelecida no interior da própria escola, cuja expressão se dá a partir das diferenças epistemológicas existentes entre o núcleo central do pensamento frankfurtiano e um conjunto de autores periféricos. Os trabalhos produzidos por esse núcleo “marginal”, bem como seu posterior refinamento na obra de Habermas, apresentam alternativas teóricas de caráter relacional que contrapõem a visão estrutural e cética presente nos trabalhos de Horkheimer, Adorno e Marcuse. É justamente na recuperação dessas fronteiras endógenas que se pretende ponderar as possíveis contribuições do pensamento frankfurtiano para uma perspectiva crítica da sociedade contemporânea.
O objetivo deste ensaio é argumentar em favor da frankfurtianidade de Jürgen Habermas, isto é, estudar os pontos de convergência de sua obra em relação ao projeto teórico do Instituto de Pesquisa Social de Frankfurt e, a partir dessa ênfase, apontar novas possibilidades de pesquisa no campo de Estudos Organizacionais (EO). Para isso, refletimos sobre aspectos teóricos essenciais do ensaio “Teoria tradicional e teoria crítica” (HORKHEIMER, 1975) e elaboramos uma crítica aos intérpretes que utilizam a cronologia geracional como principal critério para a compreensão de diferenças no movimento intelectual da Escola de Frankfurt. Metodologicamente, inspiramo-nos na proposta de crítica à interpretação por meio da hermenêutica filosófica (RICOEUR, 1990) e na natureza propositiva de interpretação de um ensaio teórico (MENEGHETTI, 2011). Para sustentar a proposição expressa de forma provocativa no título deste artigo, dialogamos com comentadores (BOTTOMORE, 2001; FREITAG, 2004; NOBRE, 2004; MELO, 2013), a fim de propor uma caracterização não geracional de seus membros e a proximidade de Habermas em relação ao marco fundador da Teoria Crítica. Nesse sentido, acreditamos que (a) a releitura da intenção emancipadora (HABERMAS, 2002), (b) a desconstrução da isenção do conhecimento científico (HABERMAS, 1987) e (c) a incorporação da filosofia da linguagem à crítica social frankfurtiana (HABERMAS, 2012) são contribuições importantes de sua obra à Teoria Crítica de Frankfurt. Como proposição para a área de EO, em nossas considerações finais argumentamos que a recolocação do autor no posto de genuíno teórico crítico da Escola de Frankfurt pode constituir uma nova agenda de pesquisa para o campo. Acreditamos que nosso esforço pode auxiliar pesquisadores da área de EO a compreender a obra de Habermas a partir de uma via que os afasta da armadilha de considerá-lo um teórico não crítico e/ou utópico. Sob esse enfoque, torna-se evidente sua produção intelectual politicamente engajada nos problemas sociais contemporâneos – dimensão que vem sendo negligenciada pelos pesquisadores do campo de EO no Brasil.