Horkheimer’s institutional dominance was baked into the Institut’s founding structure

Evidence

GrUnberg continued his remarks by outlining the differences in administration that would distinguish the Institut from other recently created research societies. Rather than collegial in leadership, as in the case of the newly founded Cologne Research Institute of Social Sciences, directed by Christian Eckert, Leopold von Wiese, Max Scheler, and Hugo Lindemann, the Frankfurt Institut was to have a single director with “dictatorial” control. Although the independence of its members was assured, true direction would be exercised in the distribution of the Institut’s resources and the focusing of its energies. In subsequent years the dominance of Max Horkheimer in the affairs of the Institut was unquestioned. Although in large measure attributable to the force of his personality and the range of his intellect, his power was also rooted in the structure of the Institut as it was originally conceived. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 109

Categorization

• XREF: Single-director ‘dictatorial’ control parallels Weber’s routinization of charisma and the sociology of elite institutions — connects to social capital work on how structures channel power. — connects to: The Institute was founded through financial patronage and a shared critical stance toward society. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 67; Exile concentrated both Horkheimer’s personal power and the Institute’s appeal. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 589; Horkheimer conceived the Institute as a homogeneous group defined by shared attitudes — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 435 (+6 more)