Horkheimer authored the Institute’s report only when its American reception mattered

Evidence

Horkheimer did not intend to appear in the book himself as one of the authors. He saw himself as having a more important task, the development of dialectical logic. But in the end he wrote the general theoretical section himself after all, probably because the significance of the Institute’s first research report for its image in the New World had become clear to him. He wrote the section on the basic assumption that he was discussing `a number of categories the true place of which is really in logic’. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 170

Categorization

• XREF: Directly connects to the Institute’s exile-driven reception strategies in the US, a recurring causal thread in the book’s account of how the Frankfurt School navigated its American period. — connects to: Horkheimer suppressed the Institute’s authorship of its own most successful study. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 583; Funders and host-country courtesy shaped what the Institute’s American antisemitism report omitted — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 389
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Horkheimer suppressed the Institute’s authorship of its own most successful study. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 583; Funders and host-country courtesy shaped what the Institute’s American antisemitism report omitted — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 389

Broader Connections

• Horkheimer suppressed the Institute’s authorship of its own most successful study. #expands (0.85) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 583
• Funders and host-country courtesy shaped what the Institute’s American antisemitism report omitted #expands (0.80) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 389