Horkheimer framed Pollock’s financial demand as voluntary generosity rather than obligation

Evidence

Pollock apparently believes that he owes it to himself and to the Institute to make it clear, at a moment at which you are more or less officially our representative on the faculty, that any payments made by the Institute in the coming year will be on a voluntary basis … From year to year, the question of financing your post from another source has been mentioned between us, but, truly, not because you were less important to the Institute than others, but because we have a greater responsibility towards the others. Again and again, we therefore made efforts to find new sources of income, and again and again, although none appeared, we stood by you. I believe that Pollock’s requestthat the extension of any deadlines should not be a matter of obligation but should spring rather from respect for your achievements, from what connects us theoretically, and from an appreciation of the current difficulties in Americacan surely be understood. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 1221

Categorization

• CANDY: The euphemistic language (‘voluntary basis’, ‘respect for your achievements’) to disguise a funding cutoff is a tidy example of institutional niceties masking hard financial realities.
• XREF: Shows the rhetoric of patronage within the Institute — connects to the chapter’s running theme of how Horkheimer and Pollock disposed of members financially.