1970); George Fischer, ed., The Revival of American Socialism: Selected Papers of the Socialist Scholars Conference (New York, 1971). It was republished in my collection Permanent Exiles: Essays on the Intellectual Migration From Germany to America (New York, 1986). In it, I criticized Marcuse’s totalizing notion of the “Great Refusal” as a kind of aesthetic metapolitics that underestimated the importance of pluralism.
5. It was written before I joined Lowenthal on the Berkeley faculty and was privileged to develop a warm and close friendship with him. For my reflections on his legacy, see my introduction to the Festschrift for his 80th birthday in Telos, 45 (Fall, 1980) and “Leo Lowenthal: In Memoriam,” Telos, 93 (Fall, 1992).
6. They are, however, by no means entirely neglected. See, for example, the recent collections Erich Fromm und die Frankfurter Schule, eds., Michael Kessler and Rainer Funk (Tübingen, 1992); On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives, eds. Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonß, and John McCole (Cambridge, Mass., 1993); Marcuse: From the New Left to the Next Left, eds., John Bokina and Timothy J. Lukes (Kansas, 1994).
7. See, in particular, William E. Scheuerman, Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1994). A debate about Schmitt’s relations to Critical Theory was launched by Ellen Kennedy. See her “Carl Schmitt and the Frankfurt School,” and the responses by Martin Jay, “Reconciling the Irreconcilable? A Rejoinder to Kennedy,” Alfons Söllner, “Beyond Carl Schmitt: Political Theory in the Frankfurt School,” and Ulrich K. Preuss, “The Critique of German Liberalism: A Reply to Kennedy,” all in Telos, 71 (Spring, 1987). For her reply, see Ellen Kennedy, “Carl Schmitt and the Frankfurt School,” Telos, 73 (Fall, 1987).
8. See, for example, the discussion of its importance in Latin America in Martin Traine, “Die Sehnsucht nach dem ganz Anderen” Die Frankfurter Schule und Lateinamerika (Cologne, 1994). In Australia, although inspired by the Budapest School members who emigrated there in the 1970s, the journal Thesis Eleven also shows a strong interest in the legacy of Critical Theory. In Japan, the recently launched journal Ba-Topos plays a similar role.
9. David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Oxford, 1989).
10. Ibid., p. 159. Offe’s argument can be found in his Disorganized Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and Politics, ed. John Keane (Cambridge, Mass., 1985).
11. For a global critique, see Moishe Postone, Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical Theory (Cambridge, 1993), chapter 3.
12. For a general survey of the recent reception of Critical Theory and its complex relations to other schools of thought, see Peter Uwe Hohendahl, Reappraisals: Shifting Alignments in Postwar Critical Theory (Ithaca, 1991). For an analysis that situates the work of Benjamin and Adorno in the now highly contested history of aesthetics, see Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Cambridge, Mass., 1990).
13. For my own attempt to discuss his position, see the essays “Habermas and Modernism” and “Habermas and Postmodernism,” in Fin-de-Siècle Socialism and Other Essays (New York, 1988).
14. Leo Lowenthal, “Against Postmodernism,” Interview with Emilio Galli Zugaro, in An Unmastered Past: The Autobiographical Reflections of Leo Lowenthal, ed., Martin Jay (Berkeley, 1987), p. 262. For more on Lowenthal’s resistance to postmodernism, see my “Erfahrungen und/oder Experimentieren: Löwenthal und die Herausfordung der Postmoderne,” in Geschichte Denken: Ein Notizbuch für Leo Löwenthal ed. Frithjof Hager (Leipzig, 1992).
15. Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism: Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Durham, 1991), p. 17.
16. For a lively debate over these issues, see David Couzens Hoy and Thomas McCarthy, Critical Theory (Cambridge, Mass., 1994).
17. For discussions of these issues, see the essays in Andrew Benjamin, ed., The Problems of Modernity: Adorno and Benjamin (London, 1989), and Harry Kunneman and Hent de Vries, eds., Enlightenments: Encounters between Critical Theory and Contemporary French Thought (Kampen, The Netherlands, 1993).
18. Habermas’s most sustained critique of Dialectic of Enlightenment came in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, trans. Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, Mass., 1987). In America, it is perhaps in the work of Richard Wolin that Habermas’s critique of Dialectic of Enlightenment and the “Nietzschean,” proto-poststructuralist moment in Critical Theory has been most elaborated. See his The Terms of Cultural Criticism: The Frankfurt School, Existentialism, Poststructuralism (New York, 1992). A vigorous defense of Adorno against Habermas has been waged by the English philosopher J. M. Bernstein. See his The Fate of Art: Aesthetic Alienation from Kant to Derrida and Adorno (University Park, Pa., 1992) and Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory (London, 1995).
19. For a probing comparison, see Bernstein, The Fate of Art.
20. On the question of mimesis, see my essay, “Mimesis und Mimetology: Adorno und Lacoue-Labarthe,” in Gertrud Koch, ed., Auge und Affekt: Wahrnehmung und Interaktion (Frankfurt, 1995). For the comparison with Lacan, see Peter Dews, The Logics of Disintegration: Post-Structuralist Thought and the Claims of Critical Theory (London, 1987); for a recent reappraisal, see Joel Whitebook, Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory (Cambridge, Mass. 1995).
21. See, for example, Paul Breines, “Revisiting Marcuse with Foucault: An Essay on Liberation meets The History of Sexuality” in Marcuse, eds., Bokina and Lukes. Several of the other essays in this collection attempt to resituate Marcuse in the debate over postmodernism.
22. Foucault, “Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse: Who is a ‘Negator of History?,’ ” Remarks on Marx: Conversations with Duccio Trombadori, trans. R. James Goldstein and James Cascaito (New York, 1991), p. 119–120. Foucault once told the author that the French translation of The Dialectical Imagination in 1977 first alerted him to the similarities. Comparing Foucault and the Frankfurt School has become a frequent pastime; see, for example, Axel Honneth, Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory, trans. Kenneth Baynes (Cambridge, Mass., 1991) and Michael Kelley, ed., Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate (Cambridge, Mass., 1994).
23. See, for example, the essays in Benjamin’s Ground: New Readings of Walter Benjamin, ed., Rainer Nägele (Detroit,
