History of the Institute of Social Research (Summary)

Ludwig v. Friedeburg

The Institute of Social Research could not have developed at any other German university but that in Frankfurt am Main. A state university like all its successors, its foundation had been approved in 1914 by the sovereign responsible, the Prussian King Wilhelm II, but unlike all the others did not have the approval of the respective state parliament responsible for its financing. The reason was that the latter's conservative majority disapproved of the plans for a university forged by this liberal commercial city and some of its wealthy entrepreneur and banking families, to set up a free university for all in the former free city annexed by the Prussians in 1866 rather than a university after the Prussian pattern. After all, the city reportedly had Jewish-democratic tendencies. Funds from the state would not be forthcoming, therefore. Consequently, the only solution lay in private sponsorship allied with the support of the city a financing method which simultaneously ensured the new university would retain a liberal outlook.

City and sponsors made a conscious decision against theological faculties, creating in their stead a natural science faculty and, for the first time in Germany, an economics and social sciences faculty. Within the latter the academy for social and commercial sciences founded at the beginning of the century continued to be active and the representative building built by the Jügelstiftung in 1907 became the centre of the university which opened in October 1914. That Frankfurt's Lord Mayor Adickes succeeded in closely binding the patronage in the city with its cultural policy was largely due to his cooperation with Wilhelm Merton; the director of the firm Metallgesellschaft concerned himself with the social issues arising from the "Gründerzeit". He set up an Institute for Public Welfare charged with examining how both the public and private sector could contribute to solving social and economic problems. Adickes succeeded in binding this interest to the university project, plausible enough with respect to the academy, less so in the case of the university.

To ensure the liberalness of the university and counter what amounted to discrimination of Jewish scholars in Frankfurt, in a departure from the organization favoured by the state universities, the city and sponsors were, via a council and its committee also involved in making appointments. The equality of all denominations thus achieved new dimensions in Prussia. Frankfurt made up for what its Prussian rulers had so long failed to do. When war and inflation depleted funds, the city, later the state of Prussia intervened. The Social Democrats who now formed part of the government, overcame the rising resistance and joined forces with the university's sponsors; in addition, they cooperated with the unions to set up a labour academy for the education of union members.

In the period when medicine fused with chemistry and opened up new horizons for research, the Berlin Ministry of Culture had begun to take notice of the extraordinary talent of Paul Ehrlich whose prospects at Berlin's university were scant. In 1899 an Institute for Experimental Therapy was set up for him in Frankfurt, for which the city contributed the land and building costs while the state covered operational costs. A second building and a considerable sum of money for Ehrlich's therapy research were donated by the widow of the Jewish banker Georg Speyer. This new legal form of participation by the state, city and local sponsors became a model for the later founding of the university, at which Ehrlich who had meanwhile received the Nobel prize for his research work became professor for the experimental therapy he had developed, and would have become its first president had his health not prevented him from doing so.

Neurologist Ludwig Edinger, who had set up in Frankfurt as a general practitioner and specialist for neurology was also to achieve distinction. Edinger was convinced he would find the key to the understanding of the brain functions in the anatomy of the brain. He lectured on his experiences in doctors' circles, and this series of lectures was published as a book which attained international recognition. On account of his research work he was appointed head of his own neurological institute at the beginning of the century within the Senckenberg Stiftung, which he incorporated into the new university as one of the eleven founding institutes with the proviso that it continued to be financed from donations.

The liberal programme of the foundation university which attracted excellent scholars from all disciplines in the 1920s, particularly benefited the interdisciplinaries and new subjects above all sociology. It was in 1918 in Frankfurt that with the funds from a foundation the first chair in sociology was established in Germany, and in 1919 the Minister for Culture at the suggestion of the sponsor businessman Karl Kotzenberg, pushed through the appointment of an outsider. Franz Oppenheimer was one of the leading figures from the founding circle of historical sociology, who, did not however, as a doctor come from the right family, namely that of historical economics, and as a Jew despite his extraordinary teaching success as a lecturer at Berlin University had, until then, hardly had an opportunity to become a full professor, particularly since he saw himself as a socialist. In reality he was a radical liberal, who placed free competition above everything else. He wanted to free capitalism from its harsh land ban and support of monopoly and strove for a society of free, equal human beings in which everyone had free access to acquiring land. No other scholar of that time has through his students, among them Ludwig Erhard, exerted such a profound influence on developments in the Federal Republic of Germany from the currency reform on into the 1960s.

Of no less importance in socio-political terms and hardly conceivable at that time at any other place, was, in 1923 the setting up of the first research unit for scientific Marxism at a German university by the Weil family in the establishment of the Institute of Social Research, including a chair. The idea originated from Felix Weil whose father had increased the family fortune in corn trading in Argentina and having returned for health reasons, had lived in Frankfurt since 1912. Felix Weil studied economics here, began in 1919, the year of the revolution to work on his doctorate in Tübingen, was ejected from Württemberg because of revolutionary agitation, then received his doctorate in 1920 in Frankfurt on the concept of socialization. Together with Kurt Albert Gerlach, a young economist who in 1922 was called from a chair in Aachen to Frankfurt, and Friedrich Pollock, a friend from Max Horkheimer's young days he developed the plan for an Institute of Social Research.

From the start social research as the task of the Institute meant more than the expression implies today. The scientific, but also the practical intention was the "knowledge and discovery of social life in its whole entirety"; it was concerned with the network of "interactions between the economic foundation, the political-legal factors down to the final ramifications of intellectual life in community and society" (Society for Social Research 1925, 12), as its first director, Gerlach, declared in his inaugural memorandum in 1922. But it was not the interdisciplinary cooperation as such but its main research interest, scientific Marxism, which shaped the Institute. The money for building the Institute was donated by Felix Weil from the inheritance left him by his mother, the funds for staff and general upkeep by his father. The Society for Social Research in 1922 entered in the Register of Associations as benefactor. The building which was erected the following year opposite the university but some distance away in the Viktoria-Allee, known today as the Senckenberganlage was designed by Frankfurt architect Franz Röckle and was not at all in the style of the bourgeois Westend architecture.

It united the new functionalism with the style of a Florentine palace. Comparing it with the somewhat later IG-Farben house built by Hans Poelzig in the style of a new functionalist Baroque castle on the northern edge of the Westend quarter, Wolfgang Schivelbusch remarks: "The Institute of Social Research and the I.G.-Farben building both marked in their own way the departure from the bourgeois world of the 19th century, which found architectural expression in the villas of Frankfurt's Westend. In the Institute of Social Research the new world of monopoly capitalism was subjected to theoretical observation and analysis, in the I.G.-Farben building it was contributed to in the real economic sense. The strange parallelism of the two buildings and the enterprises residing within them continued far beyond the 1920s." (Schivelbusch 1985, 13). After the war the administrative centre of the chemical industry became that of the American Administration, with whose help the Institute of Social Research received a new building, because the first had been destroyed by bombs. And now Frankfurt University is moving into the Poelzig building.

In 1924 the first director of the Institute of Social Research was not as planned Gerlach, who died unexpectedly, but the father of Austro-Marxismus, Carl Grünberg, who was already professor for political science at Vienna University and whose numerous followers, from Max Adler and Otto Bauer to Karl Renner and Rudolf Hilferding had a great influence on social democratic politics in Austria. Grünberg took his Archives of the History of Socialism and the Workers' Movement with him. He was no less convinced than Oppenheimer that a new social order was necessary and plausible, but unlike him he believed that socialism would supersede capitalism altogether, and he saw his task as doing everything in his power to promote this development, though not by involvement in day-to-day politics or party politics, but rather through scientific work using the Marxist research method.

Thanks to the stimulating atmosphere of the city the university flourished in all its disciplines. During the 1920s Frankfurt experienced its intellectual heyday, in the new university, but also in its societal and cultural life, in the newspaper Frankfurter Zeitung and in Radio Frankfurt. Such a cultural climate was nurtured by the city's social-liberal character, which was continued convincingly in the Weimar Republic under the left-wing liberal Jewish Lord Mayor Ludwig Landmann. Furthermore, the city's industrial potential was increased by the incorporation of other communities, in particular through large chemical plants such as in the district of Hoechst. Modernization went hand in hand with social reform and infrastructure politics, exemplary Ernst May's apartments for the "Neues Frankfurt", and the city authorities actively supported democracy and the Republic through public relations efforts. No citizens' grouping directed against social democracy could have developed in Frankfurt, least of all with an anti-Semitic colouring. The influential groups among the new middle classes tended to support the social-liberal coalition; Frankfurt's education and cultural policies were accordingly in keeping with republican politics. The awarding of the Goethe prize to Sigmund Freud in 1930 was not in line with the traditional view of science, neither did it rest easy with the prejudices of German nationalism. The Frankfurt Institute of Psychoanalysis had, during this period, begun its research and teaching activities in the rooms of the Institute of Social Research. The representatives of city and state on the prize committee stood by their controversial decision and notwithstanding the bitter resistance of the Goethe philologists followed the arguments for Freud. In the words of Alfred Döblin who represented the Prussian Academy of Arts, by awarding Freud the prize the modern city of Frankfurt demonstrated that "it wished to ease the infinitely difficult intellectual situation prevailing in Germany" (Schivelbusch 1985, 110).

In this intention the two Prussian Ministers for Culture Carl Heinrich Becker and Adolf Grimme supported the city wholeheartedly during the Weimar Republic. This support manifested itself, for instance in the appointment of successors to the chairs in sociology. The candidates were once again outsiders and were of greater significance for the social-scientific discourse in the university and the intellectual culture in the city than the first generation. Karl Mannheim's support of republican constitutional politics and the special role of sociology in the political enlightenment led the registrar and Minister of Culture to assert his candidacy despite initial resistance as the follower of the professor emeritus Oppenheimer. From Heidelberg he brought with him Norbert Elias, a scholar roughly his own age, of Jewish descent like himself, who was working on his comprehensive analysis of courtly society and who played a central mediatory role in Mannheim's teaching activities.

At the same time another young private professor of philosophy, Max Horkheimer, was appointed as new director of the Institute of Social Research in place of Grünberg who was ill. However, Horkheimer could not, as the sponsors wished, take over Grünberg's vacant chair in the economics and social sciences faculty, which had chosen the respected economist and politically active republican Adolf Löwe from the Kiel Institute for World Economy. Subsequently, the creation of a new chair in the faculty for philosophy, which insisted on naming it chair in social philosophy, made Horkheimer's appointment possible. Since his youth he had been a friend of Friedrich Pollock, who had worked in the Institute of Social Research from its foundation. Horkheimer took up the project of a materialistic societal theory differently than Grünberg. Cooperation between the specialists, the sociologists and economists, historians and psychologists should be guided through philosophical reflection, determined by the formulation of questions from a social philosophy understood as a societal theory. It was starting from this premise that he began the Journal for Social Research together with Löwenthal and Pollock, Fromm, Grossmann and Adorno.

In the empirical research of the Institute the emphasis was to be on theoretical outlines and individual experience. Horkheimer wanted "to pursue the great philosophical questions using the most finely honed scientific methods, reformulate the questions during the work on the subject, state things precisely, think of new methods and yet never lose sight of the general." In his inaugural speech he referred to the example of a study begun by the Institute on a social group that was especially important and characteristic in societal-theoretical terms, namely the qualified workers and employees in Germany. The findings of the study were, at the beginning of the 1930s, suitable to "influence" and "change" not only the theoretical considerations, but also their relationship to societal practice. (Horkheimer 1931, 11) They demonstrated that it was illusionary to entertain any hope of a wider base for resistance in the event of a fascist takeover. As such they confirmed Horkheimer's premonition of the imminent disaster and strengthened him in his resolve to prepare for the Institute's emigration. Via Geneva and Paris he led the Institute to Columbia University New York. Since the university was organized as a foundation, it meant the private funds for its upkeep which were got out of Germany in good time not only ensured the Institute's survival after its expulsion, but also enabled the unique interdisciplinary cooperation between its members in the USA and the continued publication of the Journal for Social Research. The comprehensive studies that followed in the United States itself on authority and the family, and above all the studies on prejudices and authoritarian personality structures sharpened critical insights. However the course of history during that epoch, the enormous rise in destructive potential in the developed industrial societies served to change the theoretical view. Finally, came their virtually hopeless Dialectics of Enlightenment.

In Frankfurt the National Socialist regime expelled one third of the university's teaching staff for racist or political reasons including leading representatives of their respective subjects. The expulsion and then annihilation of the German Jews had a particular effect on both the university and the city. It deprived them of the most important group among the supporters of their liberal-democratic culture. Following the collapse of the regime in the Western zones efforts were made there to latch onto pre-war orientations and structures, a striving for continuity determined societal development. Also in Frankfurt but with a clearly other trend. The development here represented a deviation from the German special way. The city which had been largely destroyed was rebuilt by a radical democratic coalition in which the Social Democrats under Walter Kolb as Lord Mayor took the reins, but together with a left-wing liberal CDU, with Georg Klingler as treasurer. The Free Democrats in Frankfurt also remained left-wing liberal, unlike the opposition role of their regional party vis-à-vis the large coalition in Wiesbaden with its radical-democratic colouring.

The city of Frankfurt and the new state of Hesse were also responsible for reinstating sociology at Frankfurt University. The main concern was that the Institute of Social Research return and resume its work in Germany. Whilst exiled sociologists and representatives of the political sciences generally stood a better chance of being called back than scholars from other disciplines due to the vacuum that existed and the efforts to establish democratic-political education, the efforts by the city and the state, supported by the American Administration to bring the expelled sociologists back to Frankfurt were unprecedented. Julius Kraft later taught again at the faculty for economics and social sciences whilst Gottfried Salomon rejoined the faculty for philosophy. Horkheimer, Pollock and Adorno returned earlier to continue their joint work. In 1950 at the insistent invitation of city and state the Institute of Social Research was again set up as a private foundation using public funds and simultaneously as sociology seminar of the philosophy faculty at Frankfurt University.

The new Institute building was erected diagonally opposite the ruin of the first one, on the corner plot of Senckenberganlage and Dantestraße and site of the former villa belonging to consul Kotzenberg which was likewise destroyed by bombs. It was financed from the McCloy fund, donations from the city of Frankfurt and contributions from the Society for Social Research, which had meantime been re-entered in the associations register from which it had been struck by the National Socialist regime. Designed by Frankfurt architects Alois Giefer and Hermann Mäckler the building reflected the modest functionalism of the early 1950s, its outer walls clad in muschelkalk plates, the entrance hall and the storeys in the stairwell with Solnhofen stone. To exploit to the full the prescribed height of the neighbouring villas from the pre-war period, a veranda-like glass structure topped the three-storey building rather than a gable roof. Alongside the study rooms for the scientists, it housed lecture, seminar and library rooms, as well as a Hollerith machine for empirical research. The latter had already begun on the Institutes return to Germany, in the cellar of the ruins of the old Institute. The subject was the relationship between German ideology and democratic culture in post-war society. Using group discussions, an investigative method developed by the Institute, opinions and attitudes of characteristic groups in the West German population on political issues were to be ascertained, to determine which ideologies shaped public opinion and how group opinions are formed and assert themselves. The central research interest was a societal theory on the development trends of late capitalism and its conformist and authoritarian personality characteristics. In quickly resuming its empirical social research the Institute, which as a private foundation was part of the university and also assigned with the sociology seminars within the philosophy faculty, also won the support of younger staff to combine students' societal-theoretical education with empirical training. The discussion of empirical research work and practical exercises on social-scientific research methods were thus part of the curriculum immediately after the Institute's return. As such, sociology in Frankfurt once again began to meet the particular requirement which had distinguished it at both faculties during the 1920s, of combining critical general societal reflection with empirical research it had conducted itself, in order to further sociological knowledge.

On the occasion of the official opening of the Institute on November 14, 1951 in the new building, Horkheimer emphasized the desire for continuity. To remind his audience of the ongoing objectives of the Institute's work, he repeated part of the inaugural lecture he held twenty years earlier on accepting the post of director, stating that the goal was "to organize studies based on current philosophical issues, on which philosophists, sociologists, economists, historians, psychologists would unite in continual interdisciplinary cooperation". More important still than a professional training for sociologists, was he believed the task of "making social science education an element in the academic study of those who would in the future be active as teachers, politicians, journalists, doctors, even jurists, and in other influential areas. We see in social science an element of that current humanism, whose development is connected to the question of mankind's future." (Institute of Social Research 1952, 10) The fact that Horkheimer and Adorno not only considered social science could develop in this manner and be taken up by a new generation of students in a Germany devastated by war, but also that its chances of success were greater than in the United States was one of the decisive motives for their return.This motive shaped how teaching was resumed in Frankfurt, but was also behind the unusual intensity with which philosophy professors set up a seminar course for sociology. A further motive was that it would provide a sure opportunity for joint theoretical work. However, Horkheimer was to have little time for this. The privileges endowed on him by a chair in philosophy and sociology were, in the following years, offset by his duties as dean, president, and Institute director, but also as visiting professor in America. It was not by him but for him that the first volume of the Frankfurt Contributions to Sociology was published. This commemorative publication entitled Soziologica for his 60th birthday contained contributions which had originally been collected for a new publication of the Journal for Social Research. The Amsterdam edition of the Dialectics of Enlightenment was available in bookshops. Horkheimer did not have other works produced during his exile published again for decades. Unlike Adorno whose Philosophy of Modern Music appeared in Germany in 1949 and in 1951 Reflections from Damaged Life with the new title Minima Moralia which was a continuation of the philosophical fragments. Pollock published the book about Group Experiment and likewise published in the Frankfurt Contributions to Sociology an early work which assessed the economic and social implications of Automation.

In the following decades that saw the revival of social science in Frankfurt, the Institute developed two new research areas in industrial sociology and educational sociology. The societal-political struggles during the 1950s over the laws on shop rules and worker co-determination provided the occasion for the first industrial sociological study on the working atmosphere in the coal and steel industry. It was followed by studies on the fluctuation in coal mining and then, in cooperation with Burkart Lutz, European studies on the limits of wage incentives in an increasingly mechanised industry.

In educational sociology the main interest focused on the connection between university and society. Studies had been carried out with students, university lecturers, and non-academics in industry and commerce since the early 1950s. The most important study in which Jürgen Habermas participated concerned the relationship between Student and Politics. This was later followed by research work on the effectiveness of political education in schools.

A growing number of students who received their theoretical education in the sociology and philosophy seminars by Adorno and Horkheimer took part in these studies. In the 1960s Adorno's influence spread way beyond that of influencing science and knowledge of art, to an element of European political culture. After numerous publications on philosophy, sociology and theory of music in 1966 he published his Negative Dialectics. In America interest focused on Herbert Marcuse who in 1964 had his studies published on the ideology of the advanced industrial society entitled One-Dimensional Man. The studies in Frankfurt and Berlin on the reform and democratization of the universities played an important role for the growing student protest movement also developing in Germany. The great demand for it by students led to Dialectics of Enlightenment being republished and in this climate Alfred Schmidt published a series of Horkheimer's important works from the 1930s entitled Critical Theory. Since following Germany's material recovery there was a revival of interest in the problems of societal development, the "Kritische Theorie" attracted worldwide interest and became associated with The Frankfurt School.

After Horkheimer's retirement Adorno had directed the Institute in the 1960s until his sudden death in August 1969. In the 1970s studies on the unions led by Gerhard Brandt formed the main thrust of research, the subject of incentive-wage systems was taken up again and research on women established itself as a major study topic. There followed studies on economic and social determinants of working-time policy, socio-industrial research on the impact of using computers in production, as well as studies on industrial rationalization during the Weimar Republic, under National Socialism and during the state socialism of the GDR and Hungary.

Since the 1980s political sociology has again assumed importance for the Institute's research work which turned towards aspects of the democratic culture in West and Eastern Europe; after the fall of communism it devoted itself to the resurgence of right-wing extremists and the democratic self-image of students. At the same time studies were begun on the modernization in the city of Frankfurt, which examined the changing relationship between social rationalization and subjective acquisition of social change.

In the course of the universities reform in 1973 a new statute replaced the board of directors which had, to date, been run the Institute by an Institute council made up of equal numbers of directors and staff representatives. In 1997 the directors were replaced by a committee of scientists chaired by the executive director, as of 1975 Ludwig v. Friedeburg. The other committee members are Helmut Dubiel, Adalbert Evers, Ute Gerhard, Axel Honneth and Wilhelm Schumm. Since then the Institute's research programme has been divided into three main areas: democratic culture, social state and democracy, capitalistic modernization and the future of work. The first subject area aims researching the dangers and paradoxes in the development of civilian states of societies as exemplified in the conflict of the sexes in liberal democracies, in ethno-centric, racist and sexist forms of discrimination and in the opportunities and risks inherent in transnational civilian-socio developments. The empirical work in the second main area examines the problems and opportunities presented by social integration when the traditional form of social state is being eroded, in particular it examines social exclusion, non-state actors in social politics, welfare cultures and the relation between the sexes, but also the institutionalization of care provision. Research work in the third major area looks at new corporate forms, the internal marketing of companies and the dialectics of participation, as well as industrial relationships in global capitalism.

References

Adorno, Theodor W. 1970 ff. Gesammelte Schriften. Bde. 1-20. Frankfurt am Main.

Demirovic, Alex. 1999. Der nonkonformistische Intellektuelle. Die Entwicklung der Kritischen Theorie zur Frankfurter Schule. Frankfurt am Main.

Dubiel, Helmut. 1988. Kritische Theorie der Gesellschaft. Eine einführende Rekonstruktion von den Anfängen im Horkheimer-Kreis bis Habermas. Weinheim und München.

Friedeburg, Ludwig von/Habermas, Jürgen (Hg.). 1983. Adorno-Konferenz 1983. Frankfurt am Main.

Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung e.V. (Hg.). 1925. Institut für Sozialforschung an der Universität Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt am Main.

Hammerstein, Notker. 1989. Die Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. Neuwied und Frankfurt.

Horkheimer, Max. 1985 ff. Gesammelte Schriften. Bde. 1-19. Frankfurt am Main.

Horkheimer, Max. 1931. Die gegenwärtige Lage der Sozialphilosophie und die Aufgaben eines Instituts für Sozialforschung. Frankfurter Universitätsreden. Frankfurt am Main.

Horkheimer, Max (Hg.). 1932 ff. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. Leipzig. Paris. New York.

Institut für Sozialforschung an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. 1952. Ein Bericht über die Feier seiner Wiedereröffnung, seine Geschichte und seine Arbeiten. Frankfurt am Main.

Institut für Sozialforschung (Hg.). 1992. Kritik und Utopie im Werk von Herbert Marcuse. Frankfurt am Main.

Jay, Martin. 1973. The Dialectical Imagination. A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950. London.

Kellner, Douglas. 1989. Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity. Oxford.

Marcuse, Herbert. 1978 ff. Schriften. Bde. 1-9. Frankfurt am Main.

Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. 1985. Intellektuellendämmerung. Zur Lage der Frankfurter Intelligenz in den zwanziger Jahren. suhrkamp taschenbuch 1121. Frankfurt am Main.

Schmidt, Alfred/Altwicker, Norbert (Hg.). 1986. Max Horkheimer heute: Werk und Wirkung. Frankfurt am Main.

Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1986. Die Frankfurter Schule. München Wien. / 1994. The Frankfurt School. Cambridge Mass.

Selected studies by the Institute of Social Research - 1990

Fromm, Erich. Arbeiter und Angestellte am Vorabend des Dritten Reiches (1929). Stuttgart 1980.

Horkheimer, Max/Fromm, Erich/Marcuse, Herbert u.a. Studien über Autorität und Familie (1936). Lüneburg 1987.

Horkheimer, Max/Flowerman, Samuel H. (Hg.). Studies in Prejudice. New York 1949

Pollock, Friedrich. Gruppenexperiment. Frankfurt am Main 1955.

Pollock, Friedrich. Automation. Frankfurt am Main 1956.

Mangold, Werner. Gegenstand und Methode des Gruppendiskussionsverfahrens. Frankfurt am Main 1960.

Habermas, Jürgen/Friedeburg, Ludwig von/Oehler, Christoph/Weltz, Friedrich. Student und Politik. Neuwied 1961.

Friedeburg, Ludwig von. Soziologie des Betriebsklimas. Frankfurt am Main 1963.

Teschner, Manfred. Politik und Gesellschaft im Unterricht. Frankfurt am Main 1968.

Bergmann, Joachim/Jacobi, Otto/Müller-Jentsch, Walther. Gewerkschaften in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt - Köln 1975.

Schmiede, Rudi/Schudlich, Edwin. Die Entwicklung der Leistungsentlohnung in Deutschland. Frankfurt 1976.

Brandt, Gerhard/Kündig, Bernard/Papadimitriou, Zissis/Thomae, Jutta. Computer und Arbeitsprozeß. Frankfurt/New York 1978.

Eckart, Christel/Jaerisch, Ursula G./Kramer, Helgard. Frauenarbeit in Familie und Fabrik. Frankfurt/New York 1979.

Brandt, Gerhard/Jacobi, Otto/Müller-Jentsch, Walther. Anpassung an die Krise: Gewerkschaften in den siebziger Jahren. Frankfurt/New York 1982.

Benz-Overhage, Karin/Brumlop, Eva/Freyberg, Thomas von/Papadimitriou, Zissis. Neue Technologien und alternative Arbeitsgestaltung. Frankfurt/New York 1982.

Deutschmann, Christoph. Der Weg zum Normalarbeitstag. Frankfurt/NewYork 1985.

Kramer, Helgard/Eckart, Christel/Riemann, Ilka/Walser, Karin. Grenzen der Frauenlohnarbeit. Frankfurt/New York 1986.

Schudlich, Edwin. Die Abkehr vom Normalarbeitstag. Frankfurt/New York 1987.

Deppe, Rainer/Hoß, Dietrich. Arbeitspolitik im Staatssozialismus. Zwei Varianten: DDR und Ungarn. Frankfurt/New York 1989.

Rödel, Ulrich/Frankenberg, Günter/Dubiel, Helmut. Die demokratische Frage. Frankfurt am Main 1989.

Freyberg, Thomas von. Industrielle Rationalisierung in der Weimarer Republik. Frankfurt/New York 1989.

Brandt, Gerhard. Arbeit, Technik und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung. Frankfurt am Main 1990.

more publications