Exploring the Frankfurt School’s Theory of Social Change

Since jointly completing lectures on the theory of social change at Columbia University in the early 1940s, Franz Neumann and Herbert Marcuse have consistently combined philosophy, social theory, and the critique of classical Marxist political economy to explore the dialectical relationships among economy, politics, cultural psychology (values), and social change at different stages of social development, in an effort to further develop Marx’s thought on social change.

自20世纪40年代初在美国哥伦比亚大学共同完成社会变迁学说讲座起，弗兰茨·纽曼和赫伯特·马尔库塞持续地将哲学、社会理论和经典马克思主义政治经济学批判结合起来，探讨在不同社会发展阶段中经济、政治、文化心理（价值）及其与社会变迁之间的辩证关系，试图进一步发展马克思关于社会变迁的思想。

The so-called “theory of social change” refers to the study of major transformations in social systems and related theories, primarily examining the relationship between freedom and necessity in social change, as well as the subjective and objective factors that cause social change, and attempting to identify the dynamics of change that may bring about the highest possible realization of the individual. Neumann and Marcuse point out that social change can only be fully understood within the totality of society and nature in human life. Although the relationships among the individual, society, and nature take different forms at different stages of development, the issue running through them all is always the relationship between economic behavior and political culture.

所谓“社会变迁理论”，指的是通过研究社会制度的重大变革及其相关理论，主要探讨社会变迁中自由与必然的关系以及引起社会变迁的主客观因素，并试图找出可能带来个人最高实现的可能性的变迁动力等问题。纽曼和马尔库塞指出，社会变迁在人类生活的社会与自然的总体性中才能得到完整的理解，尽管个人、社会、自然三者在不同的发展阶段中体现为不同的关系形态，但贯穿其中的始终是经济行为与政治文化之间的关系问题。

Neumann and Marcuse divide the theory of social change into four stages of development according to different themes of the times and theoretical purposes. First, ancient philosophy, which equates social change with the process of human life and explores the maximization of human potential. In the transition from the traditional polis to the hierarchical state, humans, nature, and society intermingle, unified in the divinity of nature or in universal laws external to humans. Although the exploration of social change at this stage does not yet possess the elements of social transformation in the truly modern sense, this stage regards the development of humans’ diverse potentials as the principle of the division of labor and grants legitimacy to individual interests. At the same time, the antagonistic elements contained in theoretical content at this stage—such as the connection among social change, the human psyche, and the economic structure as a possibility for reconstructing the state and the individual psyche—already imply the driving forces and goals of the modern theory of social change.

纽曼和马尔库塞根据不同的时代主题和理论目的，把社会变迁理论划分为四个发展阶段。第一，把社会变迁等同于人类生活过程，探索人的潜能最大化的古代哲学。在从传统城邦到等级国家的转变中，人、自然、社会三者相互交融，统一于自然的神性或者外在于人的普遍法则之中。尽管该阶段关于社会变迁的探讨尚未具备真正现代意义上的社会变革要素，但这一阶段把人的多样性潜能的发挥看作劳动分工的原则，并赋予个人利益合法性地位。同时，该阶段把社会变迁、人的心灵、经济结构三者的联系看作重建国家和个人心灵的可能性等理论内容所包含的对抗因素，已经隐含现代社会变迁学说的动力因素和追求目标。

Second, medieval theology, which places the issue of social change within the overarching perspective of a static hierarchical order of the “City of Man” and the “City of God.” Under the orthodox doctrine of Thomas Aquinas’s *Summa Theologica*, so-called social change at this stage is merely ontological change governed by eternal laws; the direction and value of change are predestined. Defending the dignity of the moral laws of the existing society and opposing anything that affects the “divinely ordained” social divisions is the mainstream trend of this stage. Humans, nature, and society are unified within the framework of doctrine. Nevertheless, in the theoretical propositions of Averroism—such as the critique of traditional modes of life, the consideration of the dynamic process of life order from the perspective of productive forces, and the life responsibilities that rational individuals should assume—we can see the ideological demands of the rise of early capitalism and the elements of a theory of social change containing a materialist critical perspective.

第二，把社会变迁问题放在“人间之城”与“上帝之城”的静态等级秩序的总体性视域下的中世纪神学。在托马斯·阿奎那《神学大全》的正统教义下，这一阶段所谓的社会变迁不过是在永恒法则支配下的本体论意义上的变化，变迁的方向及其价值都是命中注定的。捍卫现存社会的道德法则尊严，反对一切影响“天定”的社会划分是这一阶段的主流思潮，人、自然、社会统一于教义的框架之中。尽管如此，我们也能从阿威罗伊主义关于传统生活模式的批判、以生产力视角来考量生活秩序动态过程、理性人该承担的生活职责等的理论主张中，看到早期资本主义兴起的意识形态诉求及其内含的唯物主义批判视域的社会变迁理论要素。

Third, the stage from the secular society inaugurated by Machiavelli to the beginnings of modern capitalism. The resurgence of rationalism provides positivist elements for analyzing the framework of social change within the existing social structure. In this process, the issue of social change acquires a completely new form in Hegel’s dialectics, namely, “social change is no longer an individual event within a relatively static reality; it has become the primary reality itself, and all static conditions must be explained through this reality.” Neumann and Marcuse point out that the dialectical concept of change implies the rejection of all conciliation; the inherent contradictions of a social system can only be resolved by destroying the system itself. Hegel’s attempt to resolve the contradictions between constantly opposing private and public interests, and the intensifying problem of the reverse accumulation of wealth and poverty, through the power of a strong state is unrealistic. Because, in their view, “How can the diverse and heterogeneous interests of individuals produce a common good? How can private interests and public interests achieve consistency?” Therefore, the so-called “social change” at this stage is merely “an adjustment to avoidable disorders,” which does not fundamentally change the substance of society nor answer the question of how social change is possible.

第三，自马基雅维利开启的世俗社会到现代资本主义的发端阶段。理性主义的重整旗鼓为现行的社会结构提供了分析社会变迁框架的实证主义要素。在这个过程中，社会变迁问题在黑格尔的辩证法中获得全新的形式，即“社会变迁已不再是相对静态的现实中的个别事件，它成了首要的现实本身，而所有静态条件都必须通过这一现实才能得到解释”。纽曼和马尔库塞指出，辩证的变迁观念意味着拒绝一切调和论，社会体系的固有矛盾只有通过摧毁体系本身才能得以解决。黑格尔试图通过强大的国家力量来解决不断对立的私人利益和公共利益的矛盾、财富和贫穷反向积累加剧的难题是不现实的。因为在他们看来，“杂多异质的个体利益怎么能够产生一个共同的善？私人利益和公共利益怎么能够取得一致性？”因此，这一阶段的所谓“社会变迁”不过是“对可避免的失调的调整而已”，并没有从根本上改变社会的实质，也没有回答社会变迁如何可能的问题。

Fourth, the formation of the theory of social change from social change to social revolution, that is, the period of the formation and development of the Marxist theory of socialist revolution. This is the transformation of the theory of social change from quantitative to qualitative change, where social transformation becomes the inevitable result of social change. With the intensification of various antagonistic forces within modern society, within the established mode of social reproduction, the problem facing humans is no longer adjusting society to adapt to social transformation, but thoroughly criticizing the existing society, with the ultimate goal of transformation being the realization of a completely different social form. This involves the question of the driving forces of social change and the subjects that bear them.

第四，从社会变迁到社会革命的社会变迁理论形成，即马克思主义社会主义革命理论形成和发展时期。这是社会变迁理论从量变到质变的转化，社会变革成为社会变迁的必然性结果。随着现代社会内部各种对抗力量的增强，在既定的社会再生产模式中，人所面对的问题不再是对社会的调整以适应社会变革，而是要彻底地批判现存社会，以实现完全不同的社会形式为最终变革目标。这就涉及社会变迁的动力及承担主体的问题。

A concept closely related to the theory of social change is “value.” In the view of some Western scholars, value is “norms and wishes”; value is not personal preference, but the reason that prompts the masses to take action in satisfying their material and cultural needs and in defining these needs. Value not only reflects existing relations of production and existing consumption patterns but also implies certain possibilities inherent in, yet suppressed by, the social productive forces. Neumann and Marcuse believe that the expression of new social values often precedes the emergence of new social systems; fundamental value shifts can reveal new historical possibilities and bring to light forces that have not yet been incorporated into the process of social change. Then, how can a new value revolution become a material force, transforming into a radical social ferment that drives social development? This includes two aspects. One is “extreme Keynesianism,” that is, the penetration of theory into humans through politics and social structures. The impulse for thrift, frugality, and focusing on expanding investment in Weber’s theory has transformed into a strong desire for consumption, but at the same time inevitably generates aversion to performance evaluation and questioning of the necessity of lifelong alienation. The other aspect comes from the social structure itself, such as the generally deteriorating quality of goods and services, the logic of antagonism implicit in production processes repeatedly disrupted in abnormal ways, and so on, which make revolution possible. In other words, the transformation of use value into aesthetic value gives rise to new models and driving forces of social change.

与社会变迁理论紧密联系的一个概念是“价值”。在一些西方学者看来，价值就是“规范和愿望”，价值不是个人喜好，而是促使社会大众在满足自己的物质和文化需要，以及在定义这种需要的过程中采取行动的原因。价值不仅反映的是现有生产关系和现有消费模式，而且还暗含了某些内在于社会生产力但却又被社会生产力压抑的可能性因素。纽曼和马尔库塞认为，新的社会价值表达往往先于新的社会制度产生，根本性的价值转变会使新的历史可能性显露出来，使还没有被纳入社会变迁过程的力量呈现出来。那么，新的价值革命何以成为一种物质力量，转化为激进的社会酵素，推动社会发展？这包括两个方面：一方面是“极端的凯恩斯主义”，即理论经由政治、社会结构而对人的渗透。原来在韦伯理论中那种勤俭节约、专注扩大投资的冲动已经变成强烈的消费欲望，但同时也不可避免地产生对绩效评估的厌恶和对终生异化的必要性的质疑。另一方面来自社会结构本身，比如普遍恶化的商品和服务质量、被反复非正常方式破坏的生产过程等所暗含的对抗逻辑使革命成为可能。换言之，使用价值向审美价值的转化催生出新的社会变迁模式和动力。

So, who will be the main catalyst of social change? Regarding the proletariat, which is ambiguously defined in modern industrial society, Neumann and Marcuse insist on the proletariat’s subjective position in the process of social change, but at the same time propose that it must be redefined and reorganized according to new historical realities. The proletariat, as a “revolutionary class in itself,” is a truly dialectical concept that synthesizes economic, political, and philosophical categories. It must be comprehensively considered and defined based on the specific mode of production, the conditions of existence and politics it brings, and the social consciousness developed under this form. Therefore, intellectuals, students, women, and others will also appear on the stage of social transformation as subjective forces of social change. In short, Marcuse is concerned that if this generation does not struggle, then perhaps it will be too late.

那么，谁将是社会变迁的主要催化剂？针对现代工业社会中被界定得暧昧不明的无产阶级，纽曼和马尔库塞坚持无产阶级在社会变迁过程中的主体性地位，但同时提出必须根据新的历史现实重新定义和组织起来。无产阶级作为“自在的革命阶级”，是一个综合了经济、政治、哲学范畴的真正辩证的概念，必须依据特定的生产方式和由其带来的生存和政治条件，以及在此形式下发展起来的社会意识等因素来加以综合考量和界定。因此，知识分子、学生、妇女等也将作为社会变迁的主体力量出现在社会变革的舞台上。总之，马尔库塞忧心的是，要想实现自由的人类社会，“如果这一代人还不斗争的话，那么也许就晚了”。

Generally speaking, on the issues of political-economic relations and the possibility of social change in national socialism, liberal capitalism, and post-industrial society, Neumann and Marcuse both adhered to a theoretical temperament different from that of Pollock, Horkheimer, and others. They consistently upheld the Marxist theoretical emphasis on the determining role of the productive forces as the economic base and advocated revolutionary action against capitalist society. Practicality is the main feature that distinguishes them from other scholars. There is no doubt that strengthening research on the Frankfurt School’s theory of social change is “extremely valuable,” because it represents another dimension of critical theory after the 1940s, one different from Horkheimer and Adorno’s, a dimension that is “more practical-political.” The excavation of this theme can, to some extent, shake the established notions of the recognized history of the Frankfurt School’s doctrine—namely, the claim that the entire Frankfurt School, from the 1940s onward, distanced itself from social practice and political action is open to question.

总的说来，在关于民族社会主义、自由资本主义以及后工业社会中的政治经济关系以及社会变革的可能性问题上，纽曼和马尔库塞都坚持一种和波洛克、霍克海默等人不同的理论气质，他们始终坚持马克思主义理论关于生产力基础和经济关系的决定性作用并提倡对资本主义社会的革命行动。实践性是他们区别于其他学者的主要特征。毫无疑问，加强对法兰克福学派社会变迁理论的研究“极有价值”，因为这代表着批判理论在20世纪40年代后的另一种和霍克海默、阿多诺不同的，“更具实践—政治意义”的维度。该主题的挖掘从某种程度上可以动摇公认的法兰克福学派学说史的既定观念，即那些关于整个法兰克福学派自20世纪40年代起就远离了社会实践和政治行动的说法是有待商榷的。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗