Early Institute authors presented materialism as pioneering rather than established doctrine

Evidence

The essays contained in the first issue were not so much analyses of the current situation as defences of the materialist or economic conception of history (concepts which at that time were widespread, and not merely restricted to cautious members of the Institute) and its application in the most disparate fields. Apart from Grünberg’s two former associates, Pollock and Grossmann, all the authors included a brief sketch of historical materialism in their essays. This indicated the extent to which Horkheimer, Fromm, Lowenthal and Adorno felt themselves to be pioneers of materialism in their own fieldsas distinct from Grossmann and Pollock, who were economists for whom knowledge of the Marxist position, at least as part of the history of the discipline, was a matter of course. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 481

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reading purpose of institutional history — this distinguishes the newer generation’s missionary stance from the Grünberg-tradition economists’ taken-for-granted Marxism. — connects to: The ‘materialist’ label largely misrepresents the actual founding of Marx’s philosophy; Historical materialism requires no metaphysical-materialist foundation; Immanentism is progressive only when historicised and materialist

Broader Connections

• The ‘materialist’ label largely misrepresents the actual founding of Marx’s philosophy #expands (0.78)
• Historical materialism requires no metaphysical-materialist foundation #corroborates (0.75)
• Immanentism is progressive only when historicised and materialist #responds-to (0.72)