Around 1930 the Institut shifted its focus from economic base to cultural superstructure

Evidence

It was as a sociologist of literature and student of popular culture that Lowenthal contributed most to the Institut after he became a full-time member in 1930 (his official title was initially Hauptassislent - first assistant - which only Grossmann shared). If it can be said that in the early years of its history the Institut concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic substructure, in the years after 1930 its prime interest lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed, as we shall see, the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was called into question by Critical Theory. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 139

If it can be said that in the early years of its history the Institut concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic substructure, in the years after 1930 its prime interest lay in its cultural superstructure. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 139

Categorization

• SEED: The turn from base to superstructure — and the questioning of the base/superstructure formula itself — could anchor an essay on when and why a research program re-orients its object of study.
• XREF: This prefigures Horkheimer’s 1931 directorial address (chapter on the programmatic reorientation) and the whole critical-theory critique of orthodox Marxism.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 139