Introduction: Horkheimer's Essais Matérialistes

Notes on an unfinished book (~1936-1939)

“There was never anything so gallant, so spruce, so brilliant, and so well disposed as the two armies. Trumpets, fifes, hautboys, drums, and cannon made music such as Hell itself had never heard. The cannons first of all laid flat about six thousand men on each side; the muskets swept away from this best of worlds nine or ten thousand ruffians who infested its surface. The bayonet was also a sufficient reason for the death of several thousands. The whole might amount to thirty thousand souls. Candide, who trembled like a philosopher, hid himself as well as he could during this heroic butchery. At length, while the two kings were causing Te Deum to be sung each in his own camp, Candide resolved to go and reason elsewhere on effects and causes. He passed over heaps of dead and dying, and first reached a neighbouring village; it was in cinders, (…) The earth was strewed with brains, arms, and legs. Candide fled quickly to another village…” — Voltaire, Candide (1918 [1759])

---

Introduction: Horkheimer’s Essais Matérialistes

The first of several posts introducing Horkheimer’s theoretical program in the 1930s, for which “all my earlier published and unpublished essays,” he writes in early 1939, “were only prolegomena.”¹ In what follows, I propose that the key to interpreting this unrealized program is an unfinished book.

---

§1. The Essais Matérialistes

In early 1936, Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin, in connection with their work through the ISR’s Paris branch, began making inquiries with their contacts in Parisian publishing houses about the possibility of printing a collection of Horkheimer’s essays in French translation under the title Essais Matérialistes. In a letter of October 12, 1936, Adorno relates to Horkheimer that his efforts to pitch the Essais to literary agents (in excursions with Benjamin through “indescribable dive[s]” in Paris, “which would do credit to a performance of Gorky’s Nachtasyl [The Lower Depths (1902)] in a provincial theater”) had been unsuccessful, despite his attempt to convince them of the “unique publishing opportunity for [the] book in France” given its basic idea, which Adorno condenses in an aside: “(the communication [Kommunikation] of enlightenment and Marxism).”² Adorno’s parenthetical formulation provides us with an interpretive key to the internal coherence of Horkheimer’s programmatic 1930s essay sequence in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (ZfS).³ The “communication” to which Adorno refers is supposed to be particularly appealing to prospective French publishers because of the particular enlightenment tradition with which Horkheimer identifies his own work: not the rigorism of the Kantian Aufklärung, but the “sensualistic” materialism of the French enlightenment, in the spirit of the Encyclopédistes of the Voltaire circle. This ethos is especially pronounced in three of the essays that were to be translated for the Essais: “Materialism and Metaphysics” (1933), “Materialism and Morality” (1933), and “Egoism and Freedom Movements: On the Anthropology of the Bourgeois Era” (1936).

Among the more sympathetic, but still skeptical, hommes de lettres in the Parisian publishing scene Adorno approached was Bernard Groethuysen, a French writer, philosopher, and agent from Gallimard who, given his friendship with Benjamin, seemed an ideal candidate for an intermediary. Whether Groethuysen consciously (as Adorno accused) or unconsciously (as Benjamin excused) sabotaged the plans, the result was the same.⁴ Adorno attributed the sabotage to, on the one hand, Groethuysen’s “fear of his Marxist friends, who might find [the] book too academic,” and, on the other, his “fear of the officials, who might find it too Marxist.”⁵ Horkheimer responds with a reflection on Groethuysen’s resistance to the Essais as a symptom of a much deeper crisis in social thought, which was torn between increasingly anti-theoretical Marxism and increasingly anti-Marxist social science and philosophy:

In the end you were completely right about Groethuysen. Fear of his Marxist friends, on the one hand, and of the authorities, on the other, does not, of course, characterize only him but the situation among French intellectuals and, indeed, beyond that, the situation among intellectuals generally. The antipathy on the part of officialdom is still attributable to the notion that some kind of force is behind Marxist theory, while, in fact, this force is dwindling so pitifully precisely because it relinquished that theory. The antipathy toward everything “academic,” an antipathy that in truth cannot appeal to tradition, derives purely from that panicked horror of criticism for which thinking per se is already suspect. But the call for discipline has not just now turned into blatant fear of the truth but has been that for much too long already, as if this could still surprise us today. It was only a matter of time before the forces that resemble each other will also find each other. To an even greater extent, the common enemy becomes thinking as such. Given actual conditions, thinking in itself is already subversive. The two of us were able to observe the beginning of this process in Frankfurt. It has now become universal and unifies the opposing groups.⁶

Horkheimer reformulates these remarks in a subsequent letter to Benjamin:

Groethuysen’s behavior is, of course, greatly influenced by his idiosyncrasies but nonetheless quite accurately reflects the situation of intellectuals there. One side, representing official intellectuality, is trained well enough to feel that work like ours is uncomfortable. The other side senses possible criticism and a lack of discipline behind sophisticated ways of thinking in general. Work like ours appears to both as suspicious, something to keep one's hands off if possible. In view of this situation it is questionable what chance right thinking has there at the moment among intellectuals. (…) I believe that interested groups have lost the capacity to make distinctions to such an extent that the danger exists that the essays would be seen as products of professional sociology.⁷

Despite assuring Adorno that, “[in] view of this state of affairs I am at the moment not all that set on publishing in France,” and that, “should major opposition become apparent, we won’t waste all that much energy on this,” Horkheimer concludes by redoubling his commitment to the project: “[it] is definitely desirable for the essays to appear in French, and, of course, we won’t let the matter rest.”⁸ Groethuysen’s resistance, however, did prove to be symptomatic. The translator initially recruited for the project, despite having finished drafts for several of Horkheimer’s essays, backed out in late 1936, seemingly out of concern for his professional reputation.⁹ Adorno continued to solicit samples from associates of the ISR (including Levinas, Koyré, and Klossowski), but another translator was never found.¹⁰ In late 1937, Horkheimer discovers “Groethuysen is translating Heidegger (…) while seeming to sabotage our efforts” in the effort of “establishing himself as an interpreter of German philosophy.”¹¹ Horkheimer was reluctant “for a number of reasons”¹² about the prospect of publishing the Essais through Félix Alcan (Paris), publisher of the ZfS since the ISR’s exile from Frankfurt in 1933 and primary publisher of the ISR’s research for most of the decade—including the ISR’s substantial report Studien über Autorität und Familie (1936) and several monographs by ISR Mitarbeiter/in.¹³ Chief among the reasons for Horkheimer’s reluctance was likely Alcan’s singular importance for the ISR’s 1930s institutional project of preserving and advancing a distinctively German tradition of (critical) social theory, which had been suppressed in Germany, as a part of the international social-scientific community, from which this kind of theoretical work had otherwise largely disappeared. In the Foreword (1933) to the first issue published in exile, after the ISR’s German publisher, C.L. Hirschfeld (Leipzig), had decided it could no longer take the risk of publishing the ZfS, Horkheimer writes:

The fact that this issue of the journal has not been published with [even] greater delay is thanks to its new publisher. The Librairie Félix Alcan has enabled it to continue to appear as a German-language scientific organ. The editorial office has been relocated to the Geneva branch of the Institute for Social Research, which continues to exist as an independent research institute. It owes a special debt of gratitude to this publisher, which is respected throughout the world for its cultural traditions, for having taken in this journal. The Institute for Social Research will continue to endeavor to promote the theory of society as a whole and its auxiliary sciences [Hilfswissenschaften]. Its staff, which is composed of young scholars from various disciplines, see in theory a factor for the bettering of reality. Conceptual thinking does not, by any means, have the same significance for the social powers of the present. Some even rightly regard it as harmful ballast. But the forward-striving forces of humanity cannot afford to do without it.¹⁴

And so, the ISR could not afford to do without Alcan. That this is the case is clear from the “Foreword to the Sixth Year” (1937), in which Horkheimer explains that Alcan’s support of their work in the German language and German social-theoretical tradition is what facilitated the ISR’s expansion into a truly international institution and the global distribution of the ZfS as a multilingual journal:

This issue marks the beginning of the sixth year of our journal. The staff of the Institute for Social Research, as the organ of which [the journal] was founded, have, in the last five years, have sometimes doubted whether they would be able to continue their studies in common. That this has been possible to date, in view of the fate of related theoretical endeavors, appears to us a particularly fortunate coincidence. The journal and the additional publications by the Institute constitute, today, one of the few scientific publications that carry on the tradition of the German Geisteswissenschaften in the German language outside of Germany itself. Our responsibility has, therefore, become greater than we expected in the beginning. When the journal was taken up by the publisher through which it has appeared since the autumn of 1933, it made sense to make it available for all valuable works in the the field of the Geisteswissenschaften which could not be published as a consequence of events elsewhere. However, the scope of our journal proved to be too small. Therefore, we have decided to carry on a philosophical tradition in that, alongside scientific sufficiency, it is the kind of thinking [Denkart] and direction of interest that are decisive for the selection of essays. The leading articles in the various fields should develop and apply a common philosophical point of view. When indifference to human affairs in general and the renunciation of rational decision-making are already taking hold in other areas of life, and relativism is becoming the self-admitted intellectual stance [Haltung], especially among the honest, then science itself can forego holding onto determinate thinking [bestimmte Gedanken] all the less.

The substantive connection between the theoretical essays in their chronological order and within the individual issues is known to our readers. In this issue, too, the German essays complement one another. The paper on “The Latest Attack on Metaphysics” aims to demonstrate that the objectivity [Sachlichkeit] of modern positivist doctrine increases the intellectual confusion of the present. It provides a semblance of security [Scheinsicherheit] by transfiguring [verklärt] specialized science in its given shape [gegebenen Gestalt] into the singular [shape of] legitimate knowledge and [in] presenting ideas which go beyond it as meaningless. This exposition—the full understanding of which, however, presupposes the works of its author: “On the Problem of Truth”, “The Rationalism Debate in Contemporary Philosophy”, etc.,—would remain one-sided if it were not at the same time shown positively how metaphysical dreams can actually be addressed in the theoretical field. A contribution to this is made through the analysis “On The Affirmative Character of Culture”, which was developed together with the work on positivism on the basis of shared discussions. Metaphysical categories, which positivism rejects—for example, [that of] a higher actuality; further: soul, personality, freedom, etc.—are also criticized here. Not, however, from the point of view of whether specialized science has any application for them, but in the context of a theory of history based on praxis [die Praxis bezogenen Geschichtstheorie]. This essay shows such thinking at work, from which positivism threatens to diverge completely.

The psychological mechanism referred to in the remarks “On the Feeling of Powerlessness” is always being generated anew under the general social relations of the present. Only in the framework of a theory of social life, which is promoted in the journal, do these psychological descriptions acquire their true meaning. They should be understood in the sense of the social psychology outlined by the author [of the remarks] throughout our publications. If, in view of [the overall] intellectual perplexity [Ratlosigkeit], the unwavering pursuit [die unbeirrte Verfolgung] of determinate ideas in the various fields of social theory is particularly necessary, any kind of philosophical thinking nevertheless requires constant observation of the work of the individual sciences. This orientation should be made easier for readers of our journal above all by the reviews. We attempt to at least refer to every [recent] publication that is at all important for the theory of society, even in [more] remote fields of [scientific] specialization. The essay section itself is expanded by studies from specialists which are connected to the questions of social science. Distinctions in theoretical attitude are entirely secondary to the clarification of individual matters of fact. Critique of the positivistic school does not prevent us from recognizing and promoting its technical achievements. Furthermore, we are indebted to a number of leading scholars from various fields who have contributed documentation of their interest in this journal through contributions in their own language. The empirical research work of the Institute continues to focus on the connection between cultural and economic processes. A first report on this work was published in Paris in 1936 under the title Studien über Autorität und Familie. Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung.

Several publications are currently being prepared in the further development of this work, especially in the United States. The researches into Chinese economic history and the Chinese family, which our Institute is conducting on location with the Institute for Pacific Relations (see the article in Volume IV, 1935, p. 26 ff.), have progressed to such an degree that review of the extensive collection of materials can begin in just a few months. Preliminary reports [on this research] are to be published in the journal. This year, we could not realize the plan to publish four, rather than just three, issues of the journal annually. In order not to have to postpone, or even exclude, all too many contributions, we have increased their number by half of what is typical for an issue. English and French translations of a set of the more important works from the last five years have already been initiated by various parties.¹⁵

Both the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung and “The International Institute of Social Research” come to an end in 1939—the Institute removes ‘International’ from its name for the third issue of Volume VIII (1939) of the former Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, now rechristened Studies in Philosophy and Social Science (SPSS) and published entirely in English. In the foreword (1940) to this issue, Horkheimer announces the change of title, language, and, most importantly, of purpose and content:

Up to the present the journal of the Institute of Social Research has been published, three times a year, in Paris, by the Librairie Félix Alcan. The articles and reviews for both the third section of the 1939 volume and the first section of the 1940 volume are in the hands of the French printers who, in May, were still promising us that the journal would be published as usual. But because of what has happened since then, we must now assume that neither the Librairie Félix Alcan nor the printers—the Presses Universitaires de France—will be in a position to fulfill their promise in the near future.

We have, consequently, decided to publish the third section of the 1939 volume in America. In any case, most of the contributors made this country their new home some years ago. We did not previously publish the journal in America largely because for the last eight years most of our readers have been Europeans. As most of the contributions were printed in German, the journal fulfilled its own special purpose; philosophic and scientific traditions which could no longer be pursued in Germany were continued here in their native language. The actual language in which articles are published is not without influence on the contents of the thought. Both our Institute and the publishers hoped, therefore, to help science by enabling authors to write in their own tongue. But this consideration must now be secondary to our desire to devote our work—even in its external form—to American social life.

Philosophy, art and science have lost their home in most of Europe. England is now fighting desperately against the domination of the totalitarian states. America, especially the United States, is the only continent in which the continuation of scientific life is possible. Within the framework of this country’s democratic institutions, culture still enjoys the freedom without which, we believe, it is unable to exist. In publishing our journal in its new form we wish to give this belief its concrete expression.

— Max Horkheimer. New York City, July, 1940.¹⁶

Without translator or publisher, the fate of the Essais Matérialistes was the limbo of polite, but non-committal interest expressed by Adorno’s ‘sympathetic’ Parisian contacts and their connections, a rotating cast of figures including Jean Wahl and André Gide.¹⁷ After three years of being given the runaround, in April 1939, Adorno surmises about the French publishing houses, literary agents, and intellectuals: “… evidently they’re all waiting for the day when Himmler finally puts Paris in order.”¹⁸ Plans for the Essais were likely only abandoned when war was declared in September. In “An Institute for Social Research: Idea, Activity, and Program” (1938), a conspectus of the ISR’s past work and prospectus for its planned projects (it would remain unpublished for ‘tactical’ reasons),¹⁹ Horkheimer returns to the idea of a communication between Marxism and the French enlightenment tradition in a parallel criticism of the legacy of both traditions in the present—of interwar Marxism, which turned away from critical theory for the sake of doctrinal unity in politics, and of French scientific culture, which turned away from progressive politics for the sake of value-neutral purity in theory:

The members of the International Institute of Social Research believe that the development of a comprehensive theory of society in the sense in which we have sketched it is one of the most important tasks of science today. They do not seek a solution ex vacuo, however, but wish to continue the great western tradition which has been perverted and even destroyed in Europe because of its critical effects. We refer above all to the English and French Enlightenment and to classical German Idealism down to Marx. In order to keep the elements of these traditions alive, it is not sufficient to merely repeat them and apply them to the present scene mechanically. It requires a positive advance through an evaluation of the most advanced knowledge in every sphere. The concepts must be enriched by new experiences and must be adjusted to the changed historical situation. The extent to which an indifferent, static retention of conceptual structures can change their content is revealed by the way the Enlightenment lives on in France, sunk to the level of mere phraseology, or by the use of Marxist terminology in various schools of thought during and after the war. Since ideas tend to become rigid and lose their content, it is the task of scientific thought to preserve their progressive elements by proper theoretical application. Otherwise they run the danger of being perverted by political and other charlatans, a state of affairs which actually characterizes the present cultural situation.²⁰

In the place of their communication, Marxism as pure politics returns to dogmatic theory, enlightenment as pure theory surrenders to power politics. The idea of the Essais is presented in negative outline as the breakdown of communication between the legacies of Marxism and French enlightenment thought that created such resistance to the plan for the Essais in the first place. Here, Adorno’s use of the word “Kommunikation“ to denote the relation between Marxism and the French enlightenment acquires a figurative significance: an underlying connection, even community, exposed by their failure to communicate.

1. Horkheimer to J. Favez, 2/17/1939: “All my plans are currently aimed at working during the next few years on the book for which all my earlier published and unpublished essays were only prolegomena.” In: A Life in Letters: Selected Correspondence, Max Horkheimer. Translated by Manfred R. Jacobson and Evelyn M. Jacobson (University of Nebraska Press, 2007), 147.

2. Adorno to Horkheimer, 10/12/1936. In: MHGS, Bd. 15 (1995), 662-663. Author’s translation.

3. See the CTWG’s website “ZfS in English” for links to all of the ZfS essays presently available in English translation. [https://ctwgwebsite.github.io/blog/2023/ZfS/]

4. Benjamin defends Groethuysen from the accusation, made by Adorno, that the way he handled the Essais proved he was engaging in some kind of ‘intrigue’ and explains G’s behavior as an unconscious problem of “uncontrolled reflexes.” See Benjamin’s letter to Horkheimer, 10/13/1936. In: MHGS, Bd. 15 (1995), 676.

5. Adorno to Horkheimer, 10/12/1936. In: Ibid., 662-670.

6. Horkheimer to Adorno, 10/22/1936. In: A Life in Letters (2007), 67-71.

7. Horkheimer to Benjamin, 10/27/1936: “Dear Mr. Benjamin: Many thanks for your detailed letters of October 13 and 17. I have just informed Mr. Wiesengrund, who had also just sent me a report, why I cabled you that the question regarding the publisher is not that important at the moment. Groethuysen's behavior is, of course, greatly influenced by his idiosyncrasies but nonetheless quite accurately reflects the situation of intellectuals there. One side, representing official intellectuality, is trained well enough to feel that work like ours is uncomfortable. The other side senses possible criticism and a lack of discipline behind sophisticated ways of thinking in general. Work like ours appears to both as suspicious, something to keep one's hands off if possible. In view of this situation it is questionable what chance right thinking has there at the moment among intellectuals. I view your attempts to succeed in getting published as an experiment. If you aren't successful, for me this means that their publication is not that important because the people on whom it depends are not a bad sampling of the reading public. (Cf. Groethuysen!) I believe that interested groups have lost the capacity to make distinctions to such an extent that the danger exists that the essays would be seen as products of professional sociology. For this reason I definitely consider it appropriate for us to begin with the translation and calmly continue to look around for a publisher (but without worrying too much about it). I fundamentally agree about Klossowski. In any case, the translation won't turn out right without your intense involvement. I also consider it appropriate for us to publish the egoism essay instead of that on materialism and morality. Etiemble’s letters are quite remarkable. Later, what is behind his behavior will, of course, become evident. Didn't he also get a hefty advance from Geneva? I'm particularly grateful to you for what you said about the essay on egoism and the freedom movement. I believe it is time for us to emphatically assert the identity of these antitheses in view of the systematic obfuscation of everything that connects the totalitarian states with the rest of the present and with all of the past. I expect to hear some additional quite bitter comments on this essay from various sides. The points you emphasize were all decisive for me.” In: A Life in Letters (2007), 72-73.

8. Horkheimer to Adorno, 10/22/1936: “In view of this state of affairs I am at the moment not all that set on publishing in France. I think that we will produce the translation and look for a publisher as long as neither creates any great difficulties. But should major opposition become apparent, we won't waste all that much energy on this. The most important thing, of course, is that our projects are actually completed and published in German. It has always been the case that they will ultimately find their way into the hands of the right people. It is definitely desirable for the essays to appear in French, and, of course, we won't let the matter rest. (…) Thank you for everything you have already done, and that you will still do, to bring the project to a favorable conclusion.” In: A Life in Letters (2007), 67-71.

9. As noted in by the editor’s of the collected correspondence in Horkheimer’s Gesammelte Schriften, the translations were done by René Etiemble (born 1909), writer, later professor of literature, editor of the literary journal Nouvelle Revue Française (published 1913-43 and again, after 1953, by Gallimard). Despite having translated several essays, Etiemble would back out in late 1936, giving a variety of reasons (such as military service, school, and recurring illnesses) in order to blow off Adorno and Benjamin—presumably, Adorno speculates, out of concern for his own career. See Adorno to Horkheimer, 10/12/1936. In: MHGS, Bd. 15 (1995), 662-670.

10. Horkheimer to Adorno, 10/22/1936: “It seems entirely appropriate for you to have initially solicited samples from various people. I don't know Levinas. Koyré is sure to have no time and will probably be hard to get for other reasons as well. If he worked without Benjamin's constant collaboration, Klossowski could only produce a draft that would then have to be thoroughly revised. What about Alix Guillain, Groethuysen's wife or girlfriend? Is she still so busy that we couldn't convince her to do it? It would probably not be completely inappropriate to talk to her once about everything, because it doesn't seem out of the question that, upon closer consideration, she will definitively disapprove of her husband's behavior.” In: A Life in Letters (2007), 67-71.

11. Horkheimer to Benjamin, 11/5/1937: “If no progress has been made on the volume of essays, I'd advise you to meet with Aron and Klossowski to discuss the situation. Klossowski has inquired if he should also give Groethuysen the revised translation of my egoism essay, which he did in the summer. I have nothing against this. Perhaps Aron can take care of this and talk with Groethuysen. That Groethuysen is translating Heidegger and publishing in Mesures while seeming to sabotage our efforts should immediately be clearly brought to his attention before we take the work away from him. Even if he is establishing himself as an interpreter of German philosophy he should at least be clear about whether Heidegger or, for example, my observations on anthropology are better suited for Mesures. All the same, in Paris I suggested that one of the small articles might be published in the Nouvelle Revue (Française) or a similar outlet.” In: A Life in Letters (2007), 116.

12. Horkheimer to Adorno, 10/22/1936: “In any case, I would not like to have the translation published by Alcan for a number of reasons.” In: A Life in Letters (2007), 67-71.

13. The monographs include Franz Borkenau’s (1934) Der Übergang vom Feudalen zum Bürgerlichen Weltbild. Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie der Manufakturperiode. and Hilde Weiss’s (1936) Les Enquêtes Ouvrières en France entre 1830 et 1848.

14. In: ZfS Vol. 2, Issue 2 (1933), 161. Author’s translation.

15. Horkheimer, “Vorwort zum sechsten Jahrgang.” ZfS Volume 6, Issue 1 (1937), 1-3. Author’s translation.

16. In: ZfS Vol. 8, Issue 3 (1939/40), 321.

17. Cf. Adorno to Horkheimer, 5/15/1937, in which Adorno says he is still waiting on Horkheimer’s decision to proceed with the plans for publishing the Essais matérialistes. In: Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer. Briefwechsel 1927-1969. Band I: 1927-1937. Edited by Christoph Gödde and Henri Lonitz. (Suhrkamp, 2003), 364-365. And: Adorno to Horkheimer, 8/7/1937, in which Adorno relates that he met Jean Wahl through Koyré and, after discussing the matter with Klossowski and Benjamin, suggests that Wahl be asked to write the foreword to the “Essais de Philosophie matérialiste.” At this time, Adorno is still searching for a publisher, and mentions that he got Klossowski to convince André Gide to read the ‘Egoism’ essay in the hopes of securing the latter’s support. In: Ibid., 393-394. According to Adorno’s letter to Horkheimer of 4/30/1939, Wahl was less than enthusiastic about the offer to write the foreword to a book of materialist essays. In: Briefwechsel Bd. II: 1938-1944. Edited by Christoph Gödde and Henri Lonitz (Suhrkamp, 2004), 53-54.

18. Adorno’s to Horkheimer, 4/30/1939. In: BW Bd. II (2004), 54.

19. Cf. Julian Gumperz to Horkheimer, 7/25/1938. In: MHGS, Bd. 16 (1995), 449-54. And: Horkheimer’s reply, 7/31/1938. In: Ibid., 455. Author’s translation.

20. The earliest English translation of the program, which was done in 1938 shortly after it was drafted, has been digitized and made available through the Horkheimer Archive at the University of Frankfurt: [Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 656—Dokumente zur Geschichte des Instituts für Sozialforschung (p. IX 49a-IX 55.1-5) / link: https://sammlungen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/horkheimer/content/pageview/6623269]

The German version of this draft is published in Horkheimer’s Gesammelte Schriften under the title “[Idee, Aktivität und Programm des Instituts für Sozialforschung],” in: in MHGS, Bd. 12 (1985), 131-164.