The anti-Semitism study’s scientific framing was a concession to its American audience.
Evidence
Horkheimer and Adorno expressly chose, as the starting-point of their study, a discussion of the hypotheses modern science had produced concerning the destructive tendencies lying at the root of anti-Semitism. However, the idea that this was a concession to the study’s audience virtually displaced their sense that they were taking up the current state of research and carrying out a critical extension of it. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 382
Categorization
- XREF: Reads alongside the earlier note that the Institute strategically self-censored Marxist vocabulary for American funders — same audience-directed reframing of method. — connects to: The Institute pursued anti-Semitism research independently of outside funding, titling it for American audiences. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 297; Anti-Semitic findings about American workers were suppressed to spare American opinion — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 675; Anti-Semitism research shifted to measuring personality structure rather than external factors. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 384 (+1 more)
- yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: The Institute pursued anti-Semitism research independently of outside funding, titling it for American audiences. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 297; Anti-Semitic findings about American workers were suppressed to spare American opinion — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 675; Anti-Semitism research shifted to measuring personality structure rather than external factors. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 384 (+1 more)
Broader Connections
- The Frankfurt group’s psychological focus was a pragmatic concession to American culture.
#corroborates(0.94) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 433