The Institut rejected Weber’s formal rationality in favor of substantive rationalism

Evidence

The Frankfurt School did not deny the trend towards bureaucratic rationality and legal formalism (although writing during the era of rising fascism, they could appreciate, as Weber could not, the fragility of the latter). What they did find inadequate was the reduction of rationality to its formal, instrumental side. More Hegelian than Weber, who was schooled in neo-Kantianism, they argued for a substantive rationalism involving ends as well as means. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 400

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes Weber’s formal/instrumental rationality from the Frankfurt School’s substantive rationalism — a core conceptual framework for the whole tradition.
• XREF: Connects to the standard critical-theory reading list: Horkheimer’s ‘eclipse of reason’ and the instrumental reason critique central to Dialectic of Enlightenment. — connects to: Habermas over-weighted Weber and under-weighted Marx in diagnosing modernity — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 458; The Institut rejected Weber’s value-free science and his defense of capitalism — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 401; Weber’s neo-Kantianism barred him from hoping to restore substantive reason — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 783 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• The Institut rejected Weber’s value-free science and his defense of capitalism #expands (0.85) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 401
• Weber’s neo-Kantianism barred him from hoping to restore substantive reason #corroborates (0.75) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 783
• Adorno rejected Hegel’s rationality thesis as a capitulation to unreason #expands (0.72) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 185