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, 1988).
24. Derrida, “Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’,” in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, ed. Drucilla Cornell et al., (New York, 1992).
25. See, for example, Margaret Cohen, Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of the Surrealist Revolution (Berkeley, 1993).
26. Richard J. Bernstein, The New Constellation: The Ethical/Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity (Cambridge, 1991).
27. Jean-François Lyotard, “A Svelte Appendix to the Postmodern Question,” in Political Writings, trans. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul (Minneapolis, 1993), p. 28.
28. Fredric Jameson, Late Marxism: Adorno, Or, The Persistence of the Dialectic (New York, 1990), pp. 249–252.
29. For my own thoughts on this issue, see “Class Struggle in the Classroom? The Myth of American ‘Seminarmarxism’.” Salmagundi, 85–86 (Winter, Spring, 1990). It has also been argued by Stephen T. Leonard