The Institute’s non-European studies relied on orthodox Marxist methods, not Critical Theory.

Evidence

Even more ambitiously, the Institut attempted to situate the crisis of Western civilization in a global context. Here it relied on its experts in non-European affairs to broaden the scope of its work. The methodology that they used, however, tended to diverge from that employed in the Studien. This was especially true of the work of Karl August Wittfogel, whose distance from Critical Theory has already been stressed. Despite the gap between his approach and Horkheimer’s, his studies of China appeared in the Zeitschrift during the 1930’s with some regularity. Enriched by almost three years of research in the Far East after 1935, Wittfogel’s work continued to be based on more orthodox Marxist premises than those of the Institut’s inner circle. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 435

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Wittfogel’s later Oriental Despotism and the theory of Asiatic mode of production, a separate intellectual track from Frankfurt School critical theory. — connects to: Behemoth was Institute recognition denied because its methodology strayed from Critical Theory — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 505

Broader Connections

• Behemoth was Institute recognition denied because its methodology strayed from Critical Theory #complicates (0.75) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 505