The Institute’s empirical apparatus functioned mainly as a protective screen for theory.

Evidence

The fact that the theoretical drafts did not refer at any point to the questionnaire material or to the reports on research and literature dramatically illustrated the limited extent to which a `fusion of constructive and empirical procedures’ could be spoken of. At the same time, the letters of Horkheimer and Fromm showed that empirical research, and keeping themselves well-informed about the various scientific disciplines, served the Institute’s two chief theoreticians as a kind of protective screen. Behind this screen, a form of theory was being pursued which, on the one hand, was attempting to distinguish itself from pure philosophy, but which was also, on the other hand, sceptical about the various branches of science and about empirical research, and uncertain of its own status. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 605

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: Wiggershaus inverts the self-mythology: the empirical turn was a defensive shell around a theory unsure of its own status, not genuine interdisciplinarity.
• XREF: Echoes the recurring gap between proclaimed method and actual practice found throughout critical-theory institutional histories. — connects to: The Institute kept theory loosely coupled to empirical results to protect its totality claims — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 722; Horkheimer steered the Institute toward empirical research while retaining theoretical control — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1495

Broader Connections

• The Institute kept theory loosely coupled to empirical results to protect its totality claims #expands (0.90) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 722
• Horkheimer steered the Institute toward empirical research while retaining theoretical control #qualifies (0.75) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 1495