Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lukács’ Theory of Reification and the Tradition of Critical Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Theory

Part of the book series: Political Philosophy and Public Purpose ((POPHPUPU))

Abstract

This chapter begins with a brief reconstruction of Lukács’ theory of reification, then goes on to consider the theory’s critical reception by Theodor W. Adorno, Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth. The author focuses on the critical reservations of these main representatives of the three generations of critical theory on Lukács’ theory, while also briefly referring to their attempts to preserve its true core. The chapter culminates in a broad assessment of the Frankfurt School’s critique of the theory and an attempt to determine the lead that a contemporary update should take.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lukács 2002: xliii. In some cases I have silently altered the English translation of quotes from the works of Lukács, Adorno, Habermas and Honneth.

  2. 2.

    This term is already used in the introductory passage of Lukács’ reification essay (Lukács 2002: 83). Unfortunately, the English translation often overlooks the central importance of this concept and renders it invisible by circumlocutions.

  3. 3.

    The English translation does not in all cases retain the specific meaning of the uncommon German word “struktiv”. Lukács used it to denote the dynamic character of a formative or constitutive factor. Cf. Eiden-Offe 2011: 69.

  4. 4.

    Theodor W. Adorno to Lucien Goldmann, October 15, 1963, Theodor W. Adorno Archive, BR 484/42 (quoted in Braunstein and Duckheim 2015: 33).

  5. 5.

    Theodor W. Adorno Archive, Vo 8831-8832 (quoted in Braunstein 2011, 41).

  6. 6.

    Horkheimer and Adorno 1985: 527. The dating of the discussion is uncertain. It is very probable that it took place in 1931 instead of 1939 (see the editor’s note; Horkheimer and Adorno 1985: 526).

  7. 7.

    Adorno 1973: 192. Timothy Hall detects a similar critique of Lukács’s “romantic” tendencies in another section of Negative Dialectics entitled “On the Dialectics of Identity” (Adorno 1973: 146-148). Cf. Hall 2011a: 67-69.

  8. 8.

    Honneth speaks about a “transformation of the Dialectic of Enlightenment in light of the theory of communication” (Honneth 1991: 278).

  9. 9.

    This is the same critique critical theorists of the younger generation continue to embrace. Cf. for example, Stahl 2012: 303–304.

  10. 10.

    Honneth 2008: 56. The word does not appear in the English translation.

Bibliography

  • Adorno, Theodor W. 1973. Negative dialectics. Trans. E.B. Ashton. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1980. Reconciliation under duress. In Ernst Bloch, Georg Lukács et al., Aesthetics and Politics. Afterword by F. Jameson. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Philosophie und Soziologie (1960). In Nachgelassene Schriften, vol. IV.6, ed. Dirk Braunstein. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Perry. 1979. Considerations on western Marxism. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Johannes. 1986. Die Versprachlichung des Sakralen und die Entsprachlichung der Ökonomie. In Kommunikatives Handeln. Beiträge zu Jürgen Habermas’ “Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns”, ed. Axel Honneth, and Hans Joas. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunstein, Dirk. 2011. Adornos Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Braunstein, Dirk, and Simon Duckheim. 2015. “Adornos Lukács – Ein Lektürebericht”. Lukács 2014/2015. Jahrbuch der Internationalen Georg-Lukács-Gesellschaft 14(15): 27–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chari, Anita. 2010. Toward a political critique of reification. Lukács, Honneth and the aims of critical theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism 36(5): 587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannemann, Rüdiger. 1986. Das Verdinglichungsproblem und Habermas’ Versuch einer Reformulierung. In Georg Lukács. Jenseits der Polemiken, ed. Rüdiger Dannemann. Frankfurt/M.: Sendler Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Das Prinzip Verdinglichung. Studie zur Philosophie Georg Lukács. Frankfurt/M.: Sendler Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiden-Offe, Patrick. 2011. Typing class: Classification and redemption in Lukács’s political and literary theory. In Georg Lukács: The fundamental dissonance of existence, ed. Timothy Bewes, and Timothy Hall. Continuum: London/New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, Andrew. 1988. The question of organization in the early Marxist work of Lukács. Technique or praxis? In Lukács today. Essays in Marxist philosophy, ed. Tom Rockmore. Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Rethinking reification. In Georg Lukács: The fundamental dissonance of existence, ed. Timothy Bewes, and Timothy Hall. London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. The philosophy of praxis. Marx, Lukács, and the Frankfurt School. London/New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Anhang: Literaturbericht zur philosophischen Diskussion um Marx und den Marxismus (1957). In Jürgen Habermas. Theorie und Praxis. Sozialphilosophische Studien. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1974. Introduction: Some difficulties in the attempt to link theory and praxis. In Jürgen Habermas. Theory and Practice. Trans. J. Viertel. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981. Interview mit Detlef Horster und Willem van Reijen. In Jürgen Habermas. Kleine politische Schriften I–IV. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. The philosophical discourse of modernity. Twelve lectures. Trans. F. Lawrence. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1 (Reason and the rationalization of society). Trans. Th. McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2 (Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason). Trans. Th. McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Timothy. 2011a. Reification, materialism, and praxis: Adorno’s critique of Lukács. Telos 155: 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011b. Returning to Lukács: Honneth’s critical reconstruction of Lukács’ concepts of reification and praxis. In Lukács reconsidered. Critical essays in politics, philosophy and aesthetics, ed. Michael J. Thompson. New York/London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. 1985. The dialectic of enlightenment revisited: Habermas’ critique of the Frankfurt School. New German Critique 35: 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, Axel. 1991. The critique of power. Reflexive stages in a critical social theory. Trans. K. Baynes. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. The struggle for recognition. The moral grammar of social conflicts. Trans. J. Anderson. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Reification. A new look at an old idea, ed. M. Jay. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horkheimer, Max. 1974. Eclipse of reason. London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horkheimer, Max, and Adorno, Theodor W. 1985. Diskussion über Dialektik [1939?]. In Max Horkheimer, Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 12 (Nachgelassene Schriften 1931–1949), ed. G. Schmid Noerr. Frankfurt/M: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment. Philosophical fragments. Trans. E. Jephcott. Stanford/California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jay, Martin. 1984. Adorno. Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, Hans. 1986. Die unglückliche Ehe von Hermeneutik und Funktionalismus. In Kommunikatives Handeln. Beiträge zu Jürgen Habermas’ “Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns”, ed. Axel Honneth, and Hans Joas. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jütten, Timo. 2010. What is reification? A critique of Axel Honneth. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 53(3): 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavoulakos, Konstantinos. 2011. Back to history? Reinterpreting Lukács’ early Marxist work in light of the antinomies of contemporary critical theory. In Lukács reconsidered. Critical essays in politics, philosophy and aesthetics, ed. Michael J. Thompson. New York/London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Ästhetizistische Kulturkritik und ethische Utopie. Georg Lukács’ neukantianisches Frühwerk. Boston/Berlin: Akademie Verlag (de Gruyter).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukács, Georg. 1978. The theory of the novel. A historico-philosophical essay on the forms of great epic literature. Trans. A. Bostock. London: Merlin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— (2002) History and class consciousness. Studies in Marxist dialectics (1st ed.: 1971). Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital. A critique of political economy. Vol. 1, Trans. B. Fowkes. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, Thomas. 1985. Complexity and democracy, or the seducements of systems theory. New German Critique 35: 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quadflieg, Dirk. 2011. Zur Dialektik von Verdinglichung und Freiheit. Von Lukács zu Honneth – und zurück zu Hegel. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 59(5): 701–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, Titus. 2011. Verdinglichung als Pathologie zweiter Ordnung. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 59(5): 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Verdinglichung und Herrschaft. Technikkritik als Kritik sozialer Praxis. In Ding und Verdinglichung: Technik- und Sozialphilosophie nach Heidegger und der Kritischen Theorie, ed. Hans Friesen, Christian Lotz, et al. Wilhelm Fink: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Michael J. 2011. Ontology and totality: Reconstructing Lukács’ concept of critical theory. In Lukács reconsidered. Critical essays in politics, philosophy and aesthetics, ed. Michael J. Thompson. New York/London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Social Studies, University of Crete, Crete, Greece

    Konstantinos Kavoulakos

Authors
  1. Konstantinos Kavoulakos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science, William Paterson University, Wayne, New Jersey, USA

    Michael J. Thompson

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kavoulakos, K. (2017). Lukács’ Theory of Reification and the Tradition of Critical Theory. In: Thompson, M. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Theory. Political Philosophy and Public Purpose. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55801-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation