Hegel ist der Denker der Befreiung. Er hat nicht nur festgestellt, dass in der westeuropäischen Moderne (gegenüber allen historisch vorhergehenden Ordnungen) endlich „Alle frei“ sind, sondern auch sowohl die Sklaverei, über deren Abschaffung in Haiti er gut informiert war, für Unrecht befunden als auch die Familie in der Liebe statt in einem Vertrags- oder Produktionsverhältnis begründet.

Aber für jeden dieser Bereiche gilt, dass Hegel in einem zweiten Schritt wieder Differenzierungen einführt, die ihn nicht nur zum Denker der Befreiung, sondern zugleich zum Denker einer eigenartigen Knechtschaft machen. Die „selbstbewusste Liebe“, auf die Hegel die Familie gründet, mündet in die heterosexuelle Kleinfamilie, in der das Eheverhältnis die EhepartnerInnen (Mann und Frau) zu einer Person verschweißt, die fortan nach Außen vom Mann vertreten wird, während die Frau ans Haus gefesselt bleibt. Ähnliches lässt sich im Hinblick auf die Kategorie race bei Hegel feststellen: Die Sklaverei ist für ihn „ein absolutes Unrecht“, doch behauptet er zeitgleich, dass die Versklavung schwarzer Menschen nach Amerika immer noch besser gewesen sei als ihre Realität in Afrika, wo ihnen jegliches Bewusstsein für Freiheit gefehlt hätte; und in diesem Zusammenhang entwickelt er auch eine Theorie dessen, was er „Rassenverschiedenheiten“ nennt. Die bürgerliche Gesellschaft schließlich, in der die Einzelnen erstmals nicht mehr als „Jude, Katholik, Protestant, Deutscher, Italiener, usf.“ gelten, sondern endlich nur als „Mensch“, erzeugt eine Unterschicht, die von allen zivilisatorischen Errungenschaften der Gesellschaft ausgeschlossen ist: Den Pöbel.

Zwischen beiden Deutungen muss man sich nicht entscheiden: Beide sind wahr. Hegel ist der Denker der Freiheit und der Denker der Knechtschaft. Das macht ihn zugleich zum paradigmatischen Denker unserer Gegenwart, in der genau diese Zweideutigkeit fortbesteht: Patriarchat, Rassismus und Klassendifferenz existieren innerhalb der modernen Freiheit fort. Aber ist das dann noch Freiheit? Wird sie nicht – im Ganzen – problematisch? Und noch wichtiger: Warum ist das so? Welche Rollen spielen Kategorien wie „Biologie“, „Kultur“ und „Geschichte“ im Diskurs der Moderne? Wie verflechten sich Geschlechterdifferenz, Klassendifferenz und Hegels „Rassendifferenz“ im Kontext der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft? Steht nicht sogar die Kategorie der „Liebe“ – ein Hegelsches Erbe, das wir weitgehend angenommen haben – mit einer von Hegel als „vormodern“ apostrophierten Sittlichkeit im Bunde und weist also in die Geschichte? Schließlich: Wie könnte eine Zukunft der Freiheit aussehen, die nicht mehr die zweideutige Freiheit Hegels wäre? Kann man ihm (und also unserer Moderne) entkommen?

Diese Fragen wollen wir im mit Unterstützung und auf Einladung des AK Gender, Kinship und Sexuality stattfindenden Workshop an den Texten Hegels zur Familie, zur bürgerlichen Gesellschaft und zur Philosophie der Geschichte sowie unter Rückgriff auf einschlägige Sekundärliteratur (Purtschert, Hutchings, Stone, Zambrana, Ruda) gemeinsam nachgehen.

Programm:

25.06.2026

14:15-15:55 Uhr

          Race (Purtschert):

          – Hegel, Philosophie der Geschichte (=Werke, Bd. 12), S. 105-129, 477-488.

          – Hegel, Enzyklopädie III (= Werke, Bd. 10), §§ 393-394, S. 57-70.    

16:15-18:00 Uhr

          Gender (Hutchings, Stone):

          – Hegel, Enzyklopädie II (= Werke, Bd. 9), § 369 + Zusatz, S. 516-519.

          – Hegel, Grundlinien (= Werke, Bd. 7), § 158-181, S. 307-338.

          – Hegel, Logik II (= Werke, Bd. 6), S. 480-484.

26.06.2026

15:15-16:55

          Class (Zambrana, Ruda):

          – Hegel, Grundlinien (= Werke, Bd. 7), §§ 182-188, S. 339-346.

          – Hegel, Grundlinien (= Werke, Bd. 7), §§ 237-256, S. 385-398.

17:15-19:00

          Abschlussdiskussion: Über die Reproduktion der Knechtschaft

Gerne verschicken wir die Textgrundlage (formlose Mail an rime.abd_al_majeed@leuphana.de und amoeller@em.uni-frankfurt.de)

Buchvorstellung und Diskussion

Mit Florian Butollo, Melanie Arntz, Johanna Wenckebach und Stephan Lessenich

Angesichts von Digitalisierung und Künstlicher Intelligenz wird allerorts vor massiven Arbeitsplatzverlusten gewarnt. Gleichzeitig reißen die Klagen über Fachkräftemangel nicht ab, zahllose Stellen bleiben unbesetzt, und dem Pflegesektor droht der Kollaps.

Florian Butollo geht diesem Paradoxon auf den Grund und analysiert, warum trotz Automatisierung immer mehr Arbeit entsteht – und dies Keimzelle eines neuen sozialen Konflikts ist: Die anbrechende Ära der Arbeitskräfteknappheit ist geprägt vom Leiden an Überlastung und den Kämpfen dagegen. Zugleich stellt sich die Frage nach der Sinnhaftigkeit von Arbeit neu: Wofür wollen wir angesichts sozialer und ökologischer Krisen künftig unsere Arbeitskraft einsetzen – und welche Tätigkeiten können verschwinden?

Das Buch wird kommentiert von:

Melanie Arntz, Professorin und Arbeitsmarktforscherin, Vize-Direktorin des Instituts für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Mitglied der Arbeitsgruppe » Digitalisierung und ökologische Transformation«

Johanna Wenckebach, Professorin für Arbeitsrecht an der University of Labour und Justiziarin der IG Metall

Stephan Lessenich, Direktor des Instituts für Sozialforschung und Professor für Gesellschaftstheorie und Sozialforschung an der Goethe-Universität

Vortrag von Ruth Manstetten, kommentiert von Jonas Schmeinck

Vortragsreihe des AK Kritische Soziologie. Gemeinsamer Arbeitskreis am Institut für Soziologie der Goethe-Universität und am Institut für Sozialforschung (IfS) Frankfurt a. M.

Alle Vorträge finden c. t. statt.
Kontakt: martin@soz.uni-frankfurt.de
Koordination: Ole Bogner, Laura Hanemann, Paul Höfer, Stephan Lessenich, Susanne Martin, Jonas Schmeinck, Doris Schweitzer.

Advance registration via e-mail (anmeldung@ifs-frankfurt.de) is required by June 30!

Book presentation and workshop

This volume presents new historical research on the receptions of Critical Theory in different countries in Europe, the Americas and East Asia from the 1950s to the present. Guided by Max Horkheimer’s seminal distinction between Critical and Traditional Theory, the essays examine the changing social, political, historical and intellectual historical conditions that shaped the reception of Critical Theory in these different contexts, while at the same time reflecting upon the role Critical Theory has played in transforming those conditions.

The essays reveal and the workshop will focus on the local diversity of the receptions, but also on common themes and tendencies that emerge across continents and globally. Whereas the local diversity of receptions was shaped by different political and economic systems, different stages in social modernization, and different intellectual traditions, certain common themes and responses to common global historical tendencies emerge clearly. In many different countries, early Critical Theory appealed to those looking for alternatives to both Soviet Communism and Western capitalism, and to those looking for criticisms of modernization theory in the 1950s and 1960s, and neoliberalism in the 1990s and 2000s. Habermas’s ideas often appealed to intellectuals in countries transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy, such as Greece, Spain, and Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s, or in countries searching for democratic paths beyond “real-existing socialism” in the 1980s, such as Yugoslavia.

John Abromeit (Professor of History, State University of New York, Buffalo State) will open the workshop with a discussion of the methodological presuppositions of the volume and with an overview of the results of the research. Nenad Stefanov (Research Associate in History, Leipzig University) will discuss the history of the reception of Critical Theory in Yugoslavia, but also the personal and institutional exchanges that took place between Yugoslav and West German intellectuals, which decisively shaped the Yugoslav reception. Karin Stögner (Professor of Sociology, University of Passau) will discuss the history of the feminist reception of Critical Theory in Germany. Isabelle Aubert (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University) will discuss the history of the receptions of Herbert Marcuse and Theodor W. Adorno’s writings in France, arguing that a serious reception began much earlier there than is commonly known. José Manuel Romero (Professor of Philosophy, University of Alcalá) will discuss the history of the reception of Critical Theory in Spain, with a particular emphasis on the outsized role Habermas played in Spain in the 1980s. Rúrion Melo (Associate Professor of Political Science, University of São Paulo) and Luiz Repa (Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of São Paulo), will discuss the history of the reception in Brazil, with an emphasis on the role of the protest movements in the 1960s and the transition from authoritarianism to democracy in the 1970s and 1980s. Jaeho Kang (Professor in the Department of Communication, Seoul National University) will discuss the history of the reception in South Korea, also with an emphasis on the protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s, and the transition from authoritarianism to democracy in the 1980s.  

The Internationalization of Critical Theory: Frankfurt School Receptions in Europe, the Americas and East Asia. Edited by John Abromeit, Rúrion Melo, and Luiz Repa (Bloomsbury, 2016)    

Schedule

12.30 – 13.00 Introductory presentation on the methodological framework and the general findings of the research (John Abromeit)

13.00 – 13.30 Discussion

13.30 – 13.40 Break

13.40 – 14.40 Germany and Yugoslavia

• Karin Stögner and Nenad Stefanov (2 x 20-minute presentations)

• 20-minute discussion

14.40 – 14.50 Break

16.00 – 17.00 France and Spain

• Isabelle Aubert and José Romero (2x 20-minute presentations)

• 20-minute discussion

14.50 – 15.50 South Korea and Brazil

• Jaeho Kang (hybrid) and Rurion Melo/Luiz Repa (2 x 20 minute presentations)

• 20-minute discussion

• Concluding Remarks

Adorno-Vorlesungen 2026

18–20 November 2026, 6.30–8 pm

November 18th, 6.30 pm: Patrimonial Capitalism

November 19th, 6.30 pm: Fascism as Revolutionary Conservatism

November 20th, 6.30 pm: Patriarchy Resurgent

Since 2002, the Institute for Social Research has organized in cooperation with Suhrkamp Verlag annual lectures commemorating Theodor W. Adorno that are held on three consecutive evenings. This year, the social and political theorist Melinda Cooper devotes her lectures, Anachronism in Our Times, to the revenants of three seemingly antiquated social practices we encounter in the present: The increasingly patrimonial style of high-tech capital, the rise of insurrectionist nativism and the crude reassertion of male power over women. Some interpret these developments as signs that we have entered a new era of feudalism or exited capitalism altogether, typically appealing to Marx as their standard of reference. Yet Marx’s understanding of capitalist temporality was more nuanced than this. Soon after The Communist Manifesto, Marx confronted the possibility that history could move backwards and revolution assume regressive forms. In this year’s lectures, Melinda Cooper takes inspiration from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte to interrogate these key anachronisms of our time. Rather than interpreting these as residues of a past epoch, she regards them as a prompt for rethinking the temporality of capitalism itself.

The publicly traded corporation was once the undisputed focal point of American economic life. In recent years, however, private, founder or family-controlled corporations and investment funds have assumed new prominence. Tech founders such as Elon Musk exemplify a trend towards »patrimonial« capitalism, in which the boundaries between family wealth protection and entrepreneurial innovation are increasingly blurred. Often framed as a return to feudalism, these developments more accurately recall the American Gilded Age. In her opening lecture, Patrimonial Capitalism, Melinda Cooper asks: What have we failed to understand about capitalism such that we recurrently exceptionalize its lapses into extreme wealth concentration and patrimonial politics?

While contemporary political theorists struggle with the apparent anachronism of the term »fascism«, the generic term »revolutionary conservatism« may be a way of capturing the unity and plasticity of the far right across time and place. This term has the advantage of expanding our gaze beyond the experience of early twentieth-century Europe to encompass the uniquely anti-statist, libertarian impulses of the American far right. Whereas »fascism« implies centralized economic control, »revolutionary conservatism« encompasses a diversity of economic styles while also grasping the core dynamic of far-right politics: revolutionary insurrection in the pursuit of radical restoration. In the second lecture, Fascism as Revolutionary Conservatism, Melinda Cooper examines the history of white-supremacist militias on the American far-right and asks what happens when a far-right government embraces the tradition of anti-government insurrection as its own.

Despite its proliferation in everyday discourse, the term »patriarchy« virtually disappeared from feminist theory sometime in the 1990s. Wielded by second-wave feminists in the wake of the sexual revolution, the concept was arguably anachronistic from the start. Yet the term captures an insight we cannot afford to lose: The persistence of male sexual violence against women defies rationalization within a liberal egalitarian perspective on gender relations. To make sense of it, we need to assume the existence of a shadow economy of reproduction and exchange which subjects women’s bodies to competing property interests on the part of men. How do we account for the survival of apparently »archaic« structures of sexual economy in modern times? In her closing lecture, Patriarchy Resurgent, Melinda Cooper unpacks the double logic of sexual property interest (fraternal rights of use versus paternal rights of reproduction), allowing her to illuminate the tensions between libertarianism and conservatism in light of this duality.

Melinda Cooper is professor at the School of Sociology at the Australian National University, Canberra. Her work focuses on the recent history of capitalism and its intersections with the politics of class, gender and race. She is the author of Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (2024), Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Economy (together with Catherine Waldby, 2014) and Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era (2008). The German translation of her monograph Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism (2017) will be published as part of the IfS publication series Schriften this fall.

The lectures will be held in English

Adorno-Vorlesungen 2026

18–20 November 2026, 6.30–8 pm

November 18th, 6.30 pm: Patrimonial Capitalism

November 19th, 6.30 pm: Fascism as Revolutionary Conservatism

November 20th, 6.30 pm: Patriarchy Resurgent

Since 2002, the Institute for Social Research has organized in cooperation with Suhrkamp Verlag annual lectures commemorating Theodor W. Adorno that are held on three consecutive evenings. This year, the social and political theorist Melinda Cooper devotes her lectures, Anachronism in Our Times, to the revenants of three seemingly antiquated social practices we encounter in the present: The increasingly patrimonial style of high-tech capital, the rise of insurrectionist nativism and the crude reassertion of male power over women. Some interpret these developments as signs that we have entered a new era of feudalism or exited capitalism altogether, typically appealing to Marx as their standard of reference. Yet Marx’s understanding of capitalist temporality was more nuanced than this. Soon after The Communist Manifesto, Marx confronted the possibility that history could move backwards and revolution assume regressive forms. In this year’s lectures, Melinda Cooper takes inspiration from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte to interrogate these key anachronisms of our time. Rather than interpreting these as residues of a past epoch, she regards them as a prompt for rethinking the temporality of capitalism itself.

The publicly traded corporation was once the undisputed focal point of American economic life. In recent years, however, private, founder or family-controlled corporations and investment funds have assumed new prominence. Tech founders such as Elon Musk exemplify a trend towards »patrimonial« capitalism, in which the boundaries between family wealth protection and entrepreneurial innovation are increasingly blurred. Often framed as a return to feudalism, these developments more accurately recall the American Gilded Age. In her opening lecture, Patrimonial Capitalism, Melinda Cooper asks: What have we failed to understand about capitalism such that we recurrently exceptionalize its lapses into extreme wealth concentration and patrimonial politics?

While contemporary political theorists struggle with the apparent anachronism of the term »fascism«, the generic term »revolutionary conservatism« may be a way of capturing the unity and plasticity of the far right across time and place. This term has the advantage of expanding our gaze beyond the experience of early twentieth-century Europe to encompass the uniquely anti-statist, libertarian impulses of the American far right. Whereas »fascism« implies centralized economic control, »revolutionary conservatism« encompasses a diversity of economic styles while also grasping the core dynamic of far-right politics: revolutionary insurrection in the pursuit of radical restoration. In the second lecture, Fascism as Revolutionary Conservatism, Melinda Cooper examines the history of white-supremacist militias on the American far-right and asks what happens when a far-right government embraces the tradition of anti-government insurrection as its own.

Despite its proliferation in everyday discourse, the term »patriarchy« virtually disappeared from feminist theory sometime in the 1990s. Wielded by second-wave feminists in the wake of the sexual revolution, the concept was arguably anachronistic from the start. Yet the term captures an insight we cannot afford to lose: The persistence of male sexual violence against women defies rationalization within a liberal egalitarian perspective on gender relations. To make sense of it, we need to assume the existence of a shadow economy of reproduction and exchange which subjects women’s bodies to competing property interests on the part of men. How do we account for the survival of apparently »archaic« structures of sexual economy in modern times? In her closing lecture, Patriarchy Resurgent, Melinda Cooper unpacks the double logic of sexual property interest (fraternal rights of use versus paternal rights of reproduction), allowing her to illuminate the tensions between libertarianism and conservatism in light of this duality.

Melinda Cooper is professor at the School of Sociology at the Australian National University, Canberra. Her work focuses on the recent history of capitalism and its intersections with the politics of class, gender and race. She is the author of Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (2024), Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Economy (together with Catherine Waldby, 2014) and Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era (2008). The German translation of her monograph Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism (2017) will be published as part of the IfS publication series Schriften this fall.

The lectures will be held in English

Adorno-Vorlesungen 2026

18–20 November 2026, 6.30–8 pm

November 18th, 6.30 pm: Patrimonial Capitalism

November 19th, 6.30 pm: Fascism as Revolutionary Conservatism

November 20th, 6.30 pm: Patriarchy Resurgent

Since 2002, the Institute for Social Research has organized in cooperation with Suhrkamp Verlag annual lectures commemorating Theodor W. Adorno that are held on three consecutive evenings. This year, the social and political theorist Melinda Cooper devotes her lectures, Anachronism in Our Times, to the revenants of three seemingly antiquated social practices we encounter in the present: The increasingly patrimonial style of high-tech capital, the rise of insurrectionist nativism and the crude reassertion of male power over women. Some interpret these developments as signs that we have entered a new era of feudalism or exited capitalism altogether, typically appealing to Marx as their standard of reference. Yet Marx’s understanding of capitalist temporality was more nuanced than this. Soon after The Communist Manifesto, Marx confronted the possibility that history could move backwards and revolution assume regressive forms. In this year’s lectures, Melinda Cooper takes inspiration from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte to interrogate these key anachronisms of our time. Rather than interpreting these as residues of a past epoch, she regards them as a prompt for rethinking the temporality of capitalism itself.

The publicly traded corporation was once the undisputed focal point of American economic life. In recent years, however, private, founder or family-controlled corporations and investment funds have assumed new prominence. Tech founders such as Elon Musk exemplify a trend towards »patrimonial« capitalism, in which the boundaries between family wealth protection and entrepreneurial innovation are increasingly blurred. Often framed as a return to feudalism, these developments more accurately recall the American Gilded Age. In her opening lecture, Patrimonial Capitalism, Melinda Cooper asks: What have we failed to understand about capitalism such that we recurrently exceptionalize its lapses into extreme wealth concentration and patrimonial politics?

While contemporary political theorists struggle with the apparent anachronism of the term »fascism«, the generic term »revolutionary conservatism« may be a way of capturing the unity and plasticity of the far right across time and place. This term has the advantage of expanding our gaze beyond the experience of early twentieth-century Europe to encompass the uniquely anti-statist, libertarian impulses of the American far right. Whereas »fascism« implies centralized economic control, »revolutionary conservatism« encompasses a diversity of economic styles while also grasping the core dynamic of far-right politics: revolutionary insurrection in the pursuit of radical restoration. In the second lecture, Fascism as Revolutionary Conservatism, Melinda Cooper examines the history of white-supremacist militias on the American far-right and asks what happens when a far-right government embraces the tradition of anti-government insurrection as its own.

Despite its proliferation in everyday discourse, the term »patriarchy« virtually disappeared from feminist theory sometime in the 1990s. Wielded by second-wave feminists in the wake of the sexual revolution, the concept was arguably anachronistic from the start. Yet the term captures an insight we cannot afford to lose: The persistence of male sexual violence against women defies rationalization within a liberal egalitarian perspective on gender relations. To make sense of it, we need to assume the existence of a shadow economy of reproduction and exchange which subjects women’s bodies to competing property interests on the part of men. How do we account for the survival of apparently »archaic« structures of sexual economy in modern times? In her closing lecture, Patriarchy Resurgent, Melinda Cooper unpacks the double logic of sexual property interest (fraternal rights of use versus paternal rights of reproduction), allowing her to illuminate the tensions between libertarianism and conservatism in light of this duality.

Melinda Cooper is professor at the School of Sociology at the Australian National University, Canberra. Her work focuses on the recent history of capitalism and its intersections with the politics of class, gender and race. She is the author of Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (2024), Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Economy (together with Catherine Waldby, 2014) and Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era (2008). The German translation of her monograph Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism (2017) will be published as part of the IfS publication series Schriften this fall.

The lectures will be held in English

Symposium im Rahmen der Reihe »Brüche«, einer Kooperation von Institut für Sozialforschung, Sigmund-Freud-Institut und der Oper Frankfurt