Funders and host-country courtesy shaped what the Institute’s American antisemitism report omitted
Evidence
These were questions which must have been obvious in any discussion of the American scene, but which, perhaps partly out of courtesy for the host country and the interests of the Institute’s sponsors, and partly because of the provisional nature of the report, were ignored. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 389
Categorization
- XREF: Parallels the Institute’s recorded self-censorship of Marxist vocabulary for American funders. — connects to: Horkheimer authored the Institute’s report only when its American reception mattered — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 170; Anti-Semitic findings about American workers were suppressed to spare American opinion — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 675; The Institute suppressed Jewish-psychology research out of sensitivity and political caution — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1550 (+1 more)
- SEED: Angle: how scholarly research agendas are trimmed by donors and exile politics.
- yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Horkheimer authored the Institute’s report only when its American reception mattered — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 170; Anti-Semitic findings about American workers were suppressed to spare American opinion — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 675; The Institute suppressed Jewish-psychology research out of sensitivity and political caution — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1550 (+1 more)
Broader Connections
- The Institute pursued anti-Semitism research independently of outside funding, titling it for American audiences.
#complicates(0.74) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 297