Frankfurt School, 1936: Max Horkheimer on "egoism and the freedom movement"

Max Horkheimer

Max Horkheimer’s "Egoismus und Freiheitsbewegung. Zur Anthropologie des bürgerlichen Zeitalters" (Egoism and the Freedom Movement: On the Anthropology of the Bourgeois Age) appeared in the 2/1936 number of the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. The translation of the title provided with the English abstract is, "The Selfish Interest and the Movement for Emancipation". The translations from the article below are mine.

He argues that under present conditions in capitalist society, the Aristotelian notion of catharsis in art, "die Freude am Mitleiden" (joy in pity) is reversed. "Catharsis through the stage play, through any kind of play, assumes a transformed humanity."

He traces the development of the modern (bourgeois) concept of human nature from the predominant medieval Catholic view of humans being driven by neutral drives that require mastering through moral choice into a darker views of the fundamental nature of human evil: "In opposition to Catholicism, [in Luther and Calvin] there is no neutral sphere of life drives, but rather the essence of humanity is absolutely evil and corrupt."

However, citing Robespierre as example, he argues that the opposite schools of thinking on human nature such as Rousseau also lead to the same "moralistic rigorism that is inherent to this sentimental teaching about humanity."

For the capitalist class, an Idealist ethics developed around the concept of economic competition in pursuit of wealth. Horkheimer argues that the development of such "a rational principle in mystified, idealistic form" was necessary to create social norms that would limit the principle of competition so that it wouldn’t undermine the capitalist class itself. So for the poor, "morality should mean ... the absolute suppression of their material claims". Greed is good – but not for poor people. Humility about their chances and resignation to the existing order of wealth and power were the ethical path for them, at least from the standpoint of defenders of the capitalist order.

This was necessary because egoism produces a very contradictory set of social values: "Criticism of egoism fits better in the system of this egoistic reality than its open defense, because it rests increasingly on the denial of its own character. The public enforcement of the rule [i.e., for the poor as well as the rich] would also be its downfall." Some egos were more important than others. The desires of some individuals took priority of the needs and desires of the many.

Horkheimer looks at developments in 19th century Europe to show how this conflicted notion of egoism played out among leaders. Their task was shaped by this realty: "The bourgeois revolution led the masses not into the enduring condition of a joyful existence and general equality toward which they strived, but rather into the harsh reality of the individualistic social order."

He sees an evolution in leadership style from one predominantly affirming "intellect and reason" to one more openly celebrating irrationality and barbarity. He doesn’t name Mussolini and Hitler here, but in the context of 1936 they come to mind as obvious examples current at the time of the article. But they would be very recent and extreme versions of the cases he examines: Cola di Rienzo (1313-1354), Savonarola (1452-1498), Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564). Some characteristics of the modern leader of this type that he discusses include:

• The importance of speaking in mass assemblies. The importance of the word in modern society gave special significance to the role of preachers, who were often from wealthy families. The rise of heretical movements against the Catholic Church played an important role in the development of the emotional style of speaking.

• Charisma and the trappings associated with it – dramatic staging, symbols, rituals

• The role of Terror and nihilism, "Terror" being understood in the sense of state terror as in the French Revolution. Horkheimer sees Terror as stemming from capitalist (bourgeois) nihilism, itself an extension of individualism that lead individuals to despite "the very concrete existence" of their enemies and "hatred of the happiness of others".

Horkheimer here discusses Terror in the context of insights from psychoanalysis. In doing so, he observes that the more historical, dialectical character of Freud's earlier writing seems to have receded in more recent work in favor of a more biological and positivist approach.

In a book review in the 3/1936 number of ZfS that is a kind of extension of this portion of Horkheimer's article, he notes that the Terror in the French Revolution had two targets: the actual opponents of the Revolution, and the wavering supporters. But in practice it is difficult to distinguish between the two when it comes to any particular act of the Terror period.

The distinction Horkheimer makes with particular reference to the French Revolution but which he also generalizes to the anti-feudal revolutions of later decades is that the classical bourgeois (capitalist) revolutions were characterized by the leadership of the capitalist class with a broad public support from workers, peasants, small shop-owners, etc., who actually had far more radical aspirations than the leadership. So the revolutionary leaders had first to fight the aristocratic opposition, then their own disappointed supporters. The second phase takes on the aspect of counter-revolution: "It is at this stage that the big concessions begin to be made to the nihilism of the petty-bourgeois (kleinbürgerlichen) masses."

He argues – not entirely as clearly as one might expect – that the motivation for Terror in the second sense is twofold. One is the desire of the leaders to suppress competing revolutionary aspirations; the other is the blood-lust of those portions of the general public that are beginning to despair that the revolution will achieve its desired aims. "If the correct theory of society explains the rational Terror, it will also preserve it from the irrational Terror, which at all times was the worse." But his own comments about the difficulties of distinguishing the two types suggests that the distinction between "rational" and "irrational" forms of state Terror is a very problematic one, even in the context of the French Revolution and the democratic revolutions of the 19th century.

Horkheimer's goal in the essay on egoism is affirmation of individual and collective needs without the destructive mass dynamics of fascism, a way for individuals to satisfy egoistic needs without the hostility and aggression of current forms of capitalist society produce.

Tags: frankfurt school, frankfurter schule, max horkheimer