[flagged]
None of the three writers you mention were part of the Frankfurt School.
The only serious person to come out of that circle was Hannah Arendt and they hated each other because she knew what they were, imo.
Well, if it is your case the exposure would probably have to be homeopathic, because Frankfurt school has nothing to do with any of the 3. I highly doubt anybody but the French and the Swiss have to deal with Lacan luckily (psychoanalysis was always a pseudoscience, not that PNL is any better), and Foucault stated that Marxism was bound to the 19th century and made absolutely no sense outside of it, which makes it likely that you actually don't know about him despite citing his name. He was also an unlikeable doomer, pretentious and a whiner (the last two are clearly from his minority habitus), and wrote as such.
Of the 3 you cite, only Derrida has had any influence (on linguistics and literary criticism), and I highly doubt you read any of his thoughts, mainly because it's unreadable slop (you really have to power through it) but also because I found out 6 years ago that most USians talk about him and made him say the opposite of what he wrote. It's either very bad translation, bad reading comprehension (which would be understandable if it wasn't the literal opposite of his writing) or people talking about him without actually reading him.
In fact, I will here write the main idea of Derrida: words meanings change through time and culture. Hence you can't really judge an author book with your current understanding. You also can't understand it from what you think you know about the time it was written. The only way to judge a book is by it's intrinsic coherence. To really understand what the author means, you have to find its internal contradictions.
He isn't completely clear about what these contradictions are, but finding figures of speech instead of just reading words in school to do literary analysis is because of him. If you think we should just go back to only reading words and stop trying to find meaning through figures of speech in school, I'm not totally opposed to it, but you need arguments.
I'm pretty sure that the 'gone with the wind' netflix changes would have absolutely disgusted him and is pretty much the opposite of what he stood for.
> Frankfurt School critical theory has been—along with French theory—one of the hottest commodities of the global theory industry. Together, they serve as the common source for so many of the trend-setting forms of theoretical critique that currently dominate the academic market in the capitalist world, from postcolonial and decolonial theory to queer theory, Afro-pessimism and beyond. The Frankfurt School’s political orientation has therefore had a foundational effect on the globalized Western intelligentsia.
> The luminaries of the first generation of the Institute for Social Research—particularly Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, who will be the focus of this essay—are towering figures in what is referred to as Western or cultural Marxism. For those familiar with Jürgen Habermas’s reorientation away from historical materialism in the second and then third generations of the Frankfurt School, this early work often represents a veritable golden age of critical theory, when it was still—though perhaps passive or pessimistic—dedicated in some capacity to radical politics. If there is a grain of truth in this assumption, it is only insofar as the early Frankfurt School is compared to later generations that refashioned critical theory as radical liberal—or even just blatantly liberal—ideology.[1] However, this point of comparison is setting the bar much too low, as is the case whenever one reduces politics to academic politics. After all, the first generation of the Frankfurt School lived through some of the most cataclysmic clashes in global class struggle of the 20th century, when a veritable intellectual world war was being fought over the meaning and significance of communism.
> In order to avoid being the dupes of history, or of the parochialism of the Western academy, it is therefore important to re-contextualize the Institute for Social Research’s work in relationship to international class struggle. One of the most significant features of this context was the desperate attempt, on the part of the capitalist ruling class, its state managers and ideologues, to redefine the Left—in the words of cold warrior CIA agent Thomas Braden—as the “compatible,” meaning non-communist, Left.[2] As Braden and others involved have explained in detail, one important facet of this struggle consisted in the use of foundation money and Agency front groups like the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) to promote anti-communism and lure Leftists into taking positions against actually existing socialism.
https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-the-frankfurt-scho...
I understand the criticism of most of Postmodernism, because they reject Marx historical materialism, because a part of it is new-age trash and unactionable, and its authors were grandiloquent, pretentious shit (even the one i like the most, Baudrillard, seems to be an insufferable human being), but the simple act of rejecting meta-narratives is such an interesting idea, it posit that all action (or social struggle) as necessarily local, limited, and partial, but nonetheless effective. A moto of postmodernism would be "act locally, and don't worry about any grand plan, even if those exist, they won't work".
It's unfortunate (but not surprising) that Marxism was intentionally hijacked by agents of capital at the expense of humanity as the link point out.
Btw, if you want a rejection of meta-narratives without fashionable nonsense, go read STIRNER