Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet

Front matter

-J

CHRISTIAN FUCHS

CRITICAL THEORY

Contents

1. Introduction: Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukacs, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the

Internet 1 1.1. What is Critical Theory? 5 1.2. Critical Theory and Karl Marx 9 1.3. The Frankfurt School 22

1.4. Linking the Frankfurt School and other Critical Theories: Lev Vygotsky, Valentin Volosinov, Ferruccio Rossi-Landi, and Raymond Williams 26

Index

153 154

163 169 173

177 178 181 185

189 193

207 208 210

213 214 215

CHAPTER |

Introduction: Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukacs, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet

The task of this book is to provide new readings about how some specific works of authors related to the Frankfurt School matter for critically understanding communication today. It presents five essays that review aspects of the works of Georg Lukacs, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Axel Honneth and Jürgen Habermas and applies these ideas for grounding foundations of a critical theory of communication in the age of the Internet and social media. Each chapter is dedicated to revisiting specific ideas of one of these thinkers. The book is intended as a reader on aspects of cultural Marxism in the digital age. The chapters can also be read independently.

The approach this book takes is that it a) discusses elements of specific critical theories and b) relates them to the topics of communication and the Internet. It thereby wants to contribute to a renewal and sublation of the critical theory of communication as a critical theory of society.

In this introduction, I first discuss elements of a critical theory of society (section 1.1). Second, I point out the importance of Karl Marx’s works for critical theory (section 1.2). Third, I provide some background on the Frankfurt School (section 1.3). Fourth, I argue that for a critical theory of communication it is a feasible approach to link the works of Frankfurt School to other critical cultural and social theories (section 1.4). Fifth, I comment on the relationship of the Frankfurt School and Heidegger (section 1.5). Finally, I provide an overview of this book’s chapters (section 1.6).

Fuchs, Christian. 2016. Critical Theory of Communication. Pp. 1-46. London: University of Westminster Press. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/bookl.a. License: CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0

The Frankfurt School is one of the traditions in Marxist theory that has drawn our attention to the importance of studying culture. It does so with profound engagements with ideology, the culture industry and communication. In the twenty-first century, digital culture and digital communication have become important phenomena. It is therefore an interesting task to revisit some of the writings of Frankfurt School thinkers in the light of these developments. This book is not an introduction to critical theory, a textbook or a historical account. Rather, it focuses on some selected key areas of critical theory as building blocks for the foundations of a critical theory of communication that goes beyond Habermas.

Werner Bonefeld, Richard Gunn and Kosmas Psychopedis (1992) argue in the introduction to the first volume of the three-part collected volume Open Marxism, that with the rise of neoliberalism and postmodern thought, it became fashionable in the 1980s to turn against Marxism and criticise it as outdated, old-fashioned, reductionist, deterministic, and a closed system of thought. They question this tendency and argue for open Marxism as a methodological approach. Open Marxism sees the ‘openness of Marxist categories themselves’ (Bonefeld, Gunn and Psychopedis, 1992, xi).

“Closed Marxism” is Marxism which does either or both of two interrelated things: it accepts the horizons of a given world as its own theoretical horizon and/or it announces a determinism which is causalist or teleological as the case may be (xii).

They mention Adorno and Lukacs as two of the figures in the tradition of open Marxism (Bonefeld, Gunn and Psychopedis, 1992, xii).

The Open Marxism project does not aim to reconstruct Marx’s thought, in the sense of presenting an interpretation which masquerades as the sole ‘correct’ one. Such an approach would not be helpful, for it would presuppose the possibility of a uniform and finished interpretation of Marx’s work (Bonefeld, Gunn, Holloway and Psychopedis 1995, 1).

Comparable to Bonefeld, Gunn, Holloway and Psychopedis, Wolfgang Fritz Haug (1985) argues for plural Marxism, a project that is based on the dialectic of unity and diversity (Haug 1985, 12).

Marxism does not simply exist, but is becoming. Marxism can only exist as process. Marxism’s truth cannot be organised in a number of phrases, but only in the process of the inconclusive engagement of differences with each other. [...] Marxism is not a given, there are Marxisms. Marxism exists in the plural. [...] [Marxism requires] convergence in divergence. (Haug 1985, 20)

In contemporary society, we have witnessed a certain revitalised interest in Marx, the critique of class and capitalism, and socialism. The basic trigger of this interest was the global economic crisis. In this situation, we need an open cultural Marxism in three respects. If one looks at contemporary Marxist discussions, publications and conferences, then issues relating to communication and culture are often treated as having minor, secondary importance and as having mere superstructural character. At the same time, it is, however, difficult to deny the significant role of cultural labour and communications in contemporary society. Countering dominant trends, I have argued for a media and communication studies-focused reading of Marx and Marxism (Fuchs 2016).

First, open cultural Marxism can revisit some of the contributions to cultural Marxism in an open manner. The Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism. One should, however, not reify particular traditions or thinkers, but practice an open conversation between various Marxist approaches. Marxists still often like to treat themselves mutually as their worst enemies, accusing each other, for example, of interpreting Marx incorrectly, not having understood this or that aspect of Marx or another critical approach, not being Marxist at all, being orthodox Marxists, etc. They forget who their real political and theoretical opponents are. Where one should expect comradely behaviour, one sometimes only encounters dogmatism and sectarianism.

The second dimension of open cultural Marxism is that it is time for Marxism to open up further to culture and communication as theoretical and political issues that matter in contemporary capitalism. In this book, the focus is on particular topics and categories in cultural Marxism: Lukacs’ concept of cultural work and ideological labour (chapter 2), Adornos critical dialectical theory of knowledge (chapter 3), Marcuse’s dialectics as foundation for the analysis of social medias dialectics (chapter 4), Lukács and Honneth’s concepts of alienation and reification in the context of Facebook (chapter 5), Habermas and the dialectical critical theory of communication (chapter 6). The book suggests that knowledge, culture, communication, work, labour, ideology, alienation, reification and dialectics are some of the key categories for the foundations of a dialectical critical theory of communication. It does not have the aim to formulate such a theory, but rather provides readings that contribute to its foundations.

Critical theory is itself dialectical, which means that each new contribution relates to older contributions and sublates them in a constructive manner. A critical theory is therefore not a closed universe, but an open endeavour that cross-references other critical approaches. The six chapters in this book therefore also put some of the discussed approaches into dialogue: chapter 1 focuses not just on Lukacs, but also points out Adorno’s and Lukacs’ different understandings of ontology, as well as Habermas’ interpretation of Lukacs. The chapter on Adorno (chapter 2) includes a discussion of how Adorno and Lukács’ aesthetic theories differ. It also relates Adorno’s contributions to a theory of knowledge to Habermas’ distinction of three forms of knowledge. The chapter on Honneth (chapter 4) includes a comparison of Honneth’s concept of alienation to the ones by Rahel Jaeggi and Hartmut Rosa, two other contemporary critical theorists. It shows how Honneth bases his notion of alienation on Lukacs’ History and Class Consciousness. Based on this discussion, I develop multidimensional concepts of alienation and appropriation that are grounded in the works of Marx, Lukacs and Honneth.

Questioning this approach, this book does not argue for a reification of the Frankfurt School, but rather for an open dialogue in cultural Marxism that opens up debates and lines of communication between thinkers related to the Frankfurt School and other cultural Marxists such as Raymond Williams, Lev Vygotsky, Valentin VoloSinov, or Ferruccio Rossi-Landi.

Third, this book also wants to open up Marxist discussion in respect to the way we engage with the works of thinkers in cultural Marxism. It argues for seeing the rich character of cultural Marxism and to not only focus on single works that have acquired a cult status. There are alternative, lesser-known works of cultural Marxism that are very rich and can, just like the most recognised writings, inspire contemporary debates. In respect to Lukacs and Adorno, most readers first and foremost think of History and Class Consciousness (Lukacs 1923/1971) and The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002, 94-136) when hearing these names. Focusing only on single works does not do justice to the richness, plurality and complexity of the writings of key figures in cultural Marxism. This book also seeks to stimulate the engagement with lesser-known texts in cultural Marxism.

It should not be a disappointment for the reader to hear that this book is not predominantly a re-engagement with these two works. Rather, I want to open up the debate by drawing your attention to alternative, lesser-known works, such as Lukács Ontology of Social Being, Adorno’s Hegel: Three Studies, and Adornos On Subject and Object. There is a danger that the focus on single, well-known works reduces the engagement with cultural Marxism to a one-dimensional, reified and stereotypical analysis. In respect to Lukacs and Adorno, it is certainly true that their major works are key readings for understanding ideology.

My point in the book at hand is that the tradition of the Frankfurt School has broader relevance for a critical theory of culture and communication and is not limited to ideology critique. For example, Lukács alternative works also help us to frame cultural labour and Adorno’ alternative works can inspire a critical theory of knowledge. Cultural Marxism should be open for an engagement with alternative works. Lukacs’ Ontology generalises his theory of reification, which he formulated in History and Class Consciousness, into a cultural materialist and dialectical critical theory of society. It is a key work for a critical theory of culture and communication. Those interested in History and Class Consciousness will be pleased to hear that chapter 5 in this book starts off with a discussion of this work and engages with the way Axel Honneth interpreted Lukacs’ concept of reification for a critical theory of recognition.

1.1. What is Critical Theory? 1.1.1. Definitions of Critical Theory

Lash (2002) distinguishes between dialectical critique based on Hegel and Marx and aporetic critique based on Kant and influenced by poststructuralism. Tyson (2006) identifies the following types of critical theories: psychoanalytic criticism, Marxist criticism, feminist criticism, new criticism, reader-response criticism, structuralist criticism, deconstructive criticism, new historical and cultural criticism, lesbian, gay and queer criticism, African-American criticism, postcolonial criticism. Tallack (1995) lists the following critical approaches: Marxism, structuralism/poststructuralism, psychoanalytical theory, feminism, post-foundational ethics/ politics. Agger (2006) speaks of critical theories in the plural and thereby means approaches such as postmodernist theory, the Frankfurt School, feminist theory and cultural studies.

Some scholars understand critical theory as the works of the Frankfurt School, a tradition of critical thinking that originated in the works of scholars like Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor W. Adorno (Held 1980; Wiggershaus 1995). Its starting point is the work of Karl Marx (Held 1980, 15; Macey 2001, 75; Payne 1997: 118; Rush 2004, 9; Wiggershaus 1995, 5). For Horkheimer and his colleagues, critical theory ‘was a camouflage label for “Marxist theory” (Wiggershaus 1995, 5) when they were in exile from the Nazis in the USA, where they were concerned about being exposed as communist thinkers and therefore took care in the categories they employed. There are definitions of Critical Theory that couple the usage of this term exclusively to the Frankfurt School or Habermasian Frankfurt School (see for example: Forst 1999, 143; Honneth 2007, 72).

1.1.2. Marxist Encyclopaedias

The entry for Kritische Theorie (Critical Theory) in the Europäische Enzyklopädie zu Philosophie und Wissenschaften (European Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and Science), a four-volume Marxist encyclopaedia of philosophy edited by Hans Jörg Sandkühler (1990), only provides a cross-reference to the entry Frankfurter Schule (Frankfurt School), which means that this volume assumes an identity of the terms ‘critical theory’ and the ‘Frankfurt School: A second Marxist encyclopaedia has taken a different approach: Gerhard Schweppenhauser and Frigga Haug have written the entry ‘Kritische Theorie’ (Critical Theory) in the Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Historical- Critical Dictionary of Marxism), the largest encyclopaedic project of Marxist thought (see http://www.inkrit.de/hkwm/hkwm-index.htm).

Schweppenhäuser and Haug define critical theory as emancipatory social philosophy. It tries to unite in one movement of thought the analysis and critique of forms of practice as well as types of reason and rationality of bourgeois-capitalist societies since the middle of the 19" century until today. Its starting point is Marx’s theory of the law of value as the foundation of commodity-producing societies that is derived from the analysis of the value-form. This theory is at the same time a critique of the political economy, i.e. demonstration of the capability and limit of this science for the explanation of the value-form with its social and ideological consequences (Schweppenhäuser and Haug 2012, 197).

The two authors stress the status of Critical Theory as critical philosophy and critical economics. They understand it as a broad approach that is grounded in Marx’s thought and works. They, however, also acknowledge that the Frankfurt School introduced the term and therefore draw a distinction between critical theory as the more general approach and Critical Theory as the Frankfurt School-approach.

1.1.3. Dimensions of Critical Theory

An approach that neither lists approaches nor identifies critical theory only with persons associated with the Frankfurt School is to identify dimensions of critical theory at the content level. In scholarly writings, critical theory in general is often designated in lower-case letters, whereas the Frankfurt School is labelled as ‘Critical Theory’ I do not make such a strict separation because I think the overall approach of the Frankfurt School is quite generalised.

We can identify five dimensions of a critical theory of society:

. Critical ethics.

. Critique of domination, exploitation and alienation. . Dialectical reason.

. Ideology critique.

. Struggles and political praxis.

ae WHY +

Both Marx and Frankfurt School authors stress all of these dimensions. The Frankfurt School should, in my view, not be read as a particularistic approach, but as a formulation of general foundations of Marxist philosophy and Marxist cultural theory.

For grounding an understanding of critical theory that specifies dimensions of the critique of society, some foundational texts of the Frankfurt School are helpful. Marcuse’s (1988/1968, 134-158) essay Philosophy and Critical Theory,

Horkheimer’s (2002, 188-252) essay Traditional and Critical Theory, Marcuse’s (1988/1968, 43-87) article The Concept of Essence and the section The Foundations of the Dialectical Theory of Society in Marcuse’s (1941a, 258-322) book Reason and Revolution. These foundational texts make clear that the project of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory is not a narrow one focused on particular authors or approaches, but that Critical Theory should rather be understood as Marx-inspired and -influenced enquiries into the realities of power, exploitation and domination.

1.1.4. Critical Ethics

Critical theory has a ‘concern with human happiness’ (Marcuse 1988/1968, 135) and uses the Hegelian method of comparing essence and existence because in capitalism “what exists is not immediately and already rational’ (136). This essence can be found in man’s positive capacities (such as striving for freedom, sociality, co-operation) and it has the ethical implication that universal conditions should be created that allow all humans to realize these capacities:

That man is a rational being, that this being requires freedom, and that happiness is his highest good are universal propositions whose progressive impetus derives precisely from their universality. Universality gives them an almost revolutionary character, for they claim that all, and not merely this or that particular person, should be rational, free, and happy (Marcuse 1988/1968, 152).

1.1.5. Critique of Domination, Exploitation and Alienation

Critical theory holds that ‘man can be more than a manipulable subject in the production process of class society’ (Marcuse 1988/1968, 153). The goal of critical theory is the transformation of society as a whole (Horkheimer 2002, 219) so that a ‘society without injustice’ (221) emerges that is shaped by ‘reasonableness, and striving for peace, freedom, and happiness’ (222), ‘in which man’s actions no longer flow from a mechanism but from his own decision’ (229), and that is ‘a state of affairs in which there will be no exploitation or oppression (241).

Marx treated Kant’s fundamental philosophical questions about man and his knowledge, activities and hopes (What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? What is the human?) in a specific way. He established a critical philosophy/theory and critical political economy that ‘demonstrate the concrete forces and tendencies that prevented and those that promoted’ the goal of a society that benefits all and the historical possibilities of such a society (Marcuse 1941a, 321). So Marx’s reformulation of Kant’s questions was his categorical imperative - the critique of domination and exploitation.

1.1.6. Dialectical Reason

In Marx’s works, concepts that describe the existence of capitalism (profit, surplus value, worker, capital, commodity, etc.) are dialectical because they ‘transcend the given social reality in the direction of another historical structure which is present as a tendency in the given reality’ and represent the essence of man (Marcuse 1988/1968, 86).

If, for instance, it is said that concepts such as wages, the value of labor, and entrepreneurial profit are only categories of manifestations behind which are hidden the ‘essential relations’ of the second set of concepts, it is also true that these essential relations represent the truth of the manifestations only insofar as the concepts which comprehend them already contain their own negation and transcendence - the image of a social organization without surplus value. All materialist concepts contain an accusation and an imperative (Marcuse 1988/1968, 86).

Marx’s categories ‘are negative and at the same time positive (Marcuse 1941a, 295).

The concepts of contradiction (negation) and negation of the negation are crucial for critical theory: in capitalism, every fact is ‘a negation and restriction of real possibilities’ (282). “Private property is a fact, but at the same time it is a negation of man’s collective appropriation of nature’ (Marcuse 1941a, 282). ‘The historical character of the Marxian dialectic embraces the prevailing negativity as well as its negation. [...] the negation of the negation [...] does not steadily and automatically grow out of the earlier state; it can be set free only by an autonomous act on the part of mer (Marcuse 1941a, 315). The dialectic of capitalism has a structural-objective part; capital accumulation’s contradictions result in crisis. These contradictions can only be overcome by the subjective force of the dialectic: political struggle (Marcuse 1941a, 316-319).

1.1.7. Ideology Critique

‘Basic to the present form of social organization, the antagonisms of the capitalist production process, is the fact that the central phenomena connected with this process do not immediately appear to men as what they are “in reality’, but in masked, ‘perverted’ form’ (Marcuse 1988/1968, 70).

1.1.8. Struggles and Political Praxis

For the Frankfurt School, critical theory aims at and supports social struggles for a better world: “The materialist protest and materialist critique originated in the struggle of oppressed groups for better living conditions and remain permanently associated with the actual process of this struggle’ (Marcuse 1988/1968, 141). “The philosophical ideal of a better world and of true Being are incorporated into the practical aim of struggling mankind, where they take on a human form (Marcuse 1988/1968, 142).

1.2. Critical Theory and Karl Marx

The six dimensions of a critical theory of society can also be found in Karl Marx’s works, which shows the importance of his thought for any critical theory.

1.2.1. Critical Theory has a Normative Dimension

Criticism ‘measures individual existence against essence’ (Marx 1997, 61-62). This means that critical theory is normative and realistic. It argues that it is possible to logically provide reasonably grounded arguments about what a good society is, how the good society relates to conditions that all humans require to survive (the essence of humans and society), and how we can judge existing societies according to which extent they provide humane conditions or not. Marx found it important to not just analyse capitalism academically, but also to politically communicate this analysis. This explains his own practice as a journalist and political actor.

1.2.2. Critical Theory is a Critique of Domination and Exploitation

Critical theory questions all thought and practices that justify or uphold domination and exploitation. Marx formulated the categorical imperative of critical theory: it is the ‘categoric imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a degraded, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being’ (Marx 1997, 257-258). Critical theory wants to show that a good life is possible for all and that domination and exploitation alienate humans from achieving such a society. For Marx, the ‘task of philosophy [...] is to unmask human self-alienation’ (Marx 1997, 251). In deconstructing alienation, domination and exploitation, critical theory also makes demands for a self-determined, participatory and just democracy. Such a society is not only a grassroots political democracy, but also an economic democracy, in which the producers control the production process and the means and outcomes of production. Critical theory wants to make the world conscious of its own possibilities. The ‘world has long dreamed of something of which it only has to become conscious in order to possess it in actuality’ (Marx 1997, 214).

One can interpret Marxist approaches and critical theory as a form of political communication: they communicate fundamental deformations of society and humanity and potentials for political change and struggles by which humans can overcome these deformations.

Critical theory analyses how capital accumulation, surplus value exploitation and the transformation of aspects of society into commodities (commodification) work and what the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production are: ‘In the critique of political economy, therefore, we shall examine the basic categories, uncover the contradiction introduced by the free-trade system, and bring out the consequences of both sides of the contradiction’ (Engels 1843/1844, 175).

Critical theory stresses the notions of technological rationality and instrumental reasons. In capitalism, there is a tendency for freedom of action to be replaced by instrumental decision-making on the part of capital and the state so that the individual is expected to only react and not to act. The two concepts are grounded in the notion of reification, which is a reformulation of Marx’s (1867) concept of fetishism. The media in capitalism are modes of reification in a manifold way: first, they reduce humans to the status of consumers of advertisements. Second, culture is in capitalism to a large degree connected to the commodity form, in the form of cultural commodities that are bought by consumers and in the form of audience and user commodities that media consumers/Internet prosumers become themselves. Third, in order to reproduce its existence, capitalism has to present itself as the best possible (or only possible) system and makes use of the media in order to try to keep this message (in all its differentiated forms) hegemonic. The first and the second dimension constitute the economic dimension of instrumental reason, the third dimension the ideological form of instrumental reason. Capitalist media are necessarily means of advertising and commodification and spaces of ideology. Advertisement and cultural commodification make humans an instrument for economic profit accumulation. Ideology aims at instilling the belief in the system of capital and commodities into human’s subjectivity. The goal is that human thoughts and actions do not go beyond capitalism, do not question and revolt against this system and thereby play the role of instruments for the perpetuation of capitalism. It is of course an important question to which extent ideology is always successful and to which degree it is questioned and resisted, but the crucial aspect about ideology is that it encompasses strategies and attempts to make human subjects instrumental in the reproduction of domination and exploitation.

1.2.3. Critical Theory uses Dialectical Reasoning as Method of Analysis

The dialectical method identifies contradictions. Contradictions are ‘the source of all dialectics (Marx 1867, 744). Dialectics tries to show that and how contemporary society and its moments are shaped by contradictions. Contradictions result in the circumstance that society is dynamic and that capitalism assures the continuity of domination and exploitation by changing the way these phenomena are organised. Dialectics ‘regards every historically developed form as being in a fluid state, in motion, and therefore grasps its transient aspects as well’ (Marx 1867, 103). The ‘movement of capitalist society is full of contradictions’ (Marx 1867, 103). In a contradiction, one pole of the dialectic can only exist by the way of the opposed pole. They require and exclude each other at the same time. In a dominative society (such as capitalism), contradictions cause problems and are to a certain extent also the seeds for overcoming these problems. They have positive potentials and negative realities at the same time.

Marx analysed (see Fuchs 2016) capitalism’s contradictions between:

non-owners/owners

the poor/the rich

misery/wealth

workers/capitalists

use value/exchange value

concrete labour/abstract labour

the simple form of value/the relative and expanded form of value social relations of humans/relations of things

the fetish of commodities and money/fetishist thinking the circulation of commodities/the circulation of money commodities/money

labour power/wages

subject/object

labour process/valorisation process

subject of labour (labour power worker)/the means of production (object) variable capital/constant capital

surplus labour/surplus product

necessary labour time/surplus labour time

single worker/co-operation

single company/industry sector

single capital/competing capitals production/consumption

productive forces/relations of production.

The tension between opposing poles can be resolved in a process that Hegel and Marx called ‘Aufhebung’ (sublation) and ‘negation of the negation’: a new/third quality or a new system emerges from the contradiction between two poles. Sublation can take place at different levels of society, either relatively frequently in order to enable a dynamic of domination or infrequently in situations of revolution when domination is questioned. So in capitalism, contradictions are frequently sublated in order to enable capital accumulation:

use value/exchange value => value

concrete labour/abstract labour => productive force of labour

the simple form of value/the relative and expanded form of value => the money form

social relations of humans/relations of things => fetishism (the fetish of commodities and money/fetishistic thinking)

the circulation of commodities/the circulation of money => the circulation of capital commodities/money => capital

labour power/wages => surplus labour

subject/object => product

labour process/valorisation process => the production process of commodities subject of labour (labour power, worker)/the means of production (object) => labour process/products

variable capital/constant capital => profit

surplus labour/surplus product => surplus value

necessary labour time/surplus labour time => absolute surplus value production + relative surplus value production + class struggle for reduction of the working day

single worker/co-operation => surveillance and control in the production process + alienation

single company/industry sector => capital concentration/monopoly

single capital/competing capitals => capital concentration + monopolies production/consumption => crisis

subject of labour (humans) + object of labour (technology) => technologies of means of exploitation

But there are also contradictions in capitalism that are persistent and not frequently sublated. They are at the heart of human misery in capitalism. Their sublation can only be achieved by political struggle and means the end of capitalism. These are especially the antagonisms between productive forces/relations of production, owners/non-owners, the poor/the rich, misery/wealth, workers/capitalists.

The contradiction between productive forces and relations of production is partly sublated in crisis situations, but reconstitutes itself during the course of the crisis. Its true sublation can only be achieved by the overthrow of capitalism. If in capitalism an important contradiction is the one between the owning and the non-owning class, then the goal of critical theory is the representation of the interest of oppressed and exploited groups and the overcoming of class-based society. ‘It can only represent a class whose historical task is the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and the final abolition of all classes - the proletariat’ (Marx 1867, 98).

In formulating a critique of domination and exploitation, critical theory develops ‘new principles for the world out of the principles of the world’

(Marx 1997, 214). Dialectical thinking argues that the foundations of a classless society develop already within capitalism, that capitalism on the one hand produces new forms of co-operation that are on the other hand - within class relations - forms of domination. The forces of production are in capitalism at the same time destructive forces.

Hegel and Marx’s concept of dialectics can help scholars to understand the fundamentally contradictory character of communication in modern society: communication doesn’t just communicate interests, but communicates such interests due to the antagonistic structure of modern society in opposition to somebody. Critical scholarship analyses communication by identifying political contradictions and the ways in which these contradictions are communicated in public or ideologically masked and distorted.

1.2.4. Ideology Critique: Critical Theory is a Critique of Ideology

Ideologies are practices and modes of thought that present aspects of human existence that are historical and changeable as eternal and unchangeable. Ideology critique wants to remind us that everything that exists in society is created by humans in social relationships and that social relationships can be changed. It wants to bring ‘problems into the self-conscious human form’ (Marx 1997, 214), which means that it wants to make humans conscious of the problems they are facing in society and the causes of these problems. Arguments like ‘there is no alternative to capitalism, neoliberalism, competition, egoism, racism, etc. because man is egoistic, competitive, etc’ forget about the social character of society. They create the impression that the results of social activity are unchangeable things. Critical theory provides an ‘analysis of the mystical consciousness that is unclear about itself’ (Marx 1997, 214).