The Frankfurt School/Institute, with its introduced critical framework, carried out an in-depth analysis of the existing order, while its prominent founding figures (Horkheimer/Adorno) contributed to the emergence of the critical sociology movement. The critiques made by the school still retain the same structure today, and in line with these ideas, Habermas followed by presenting his own contributions. According to Horkheimer, theory is a rational and coherent sequence of propositions; these propositions must be accurate and consistent within themselves. If a theory leads to an erroneous outcome in practice, the flawed part should be corrected. This implies that either the theory was incorrectly formulated or it was improperly applied according to practical theory. The pioneers of this approach and those in agreement have advocated for the integration and harmony of theory and practice. In this case, theory should not contradict sociability; it should be a part of the social order. It’s acknowledged that theory can change as the societal system evolves and renews itself, but in reality, theory isn’t entirely independent or free; it evolves and develops in response to the surrounding society and societal events. Research, the researcher, the theory they propose, and sociability are all interconnected. Although critical theory articulates its thesis in this manner, traditional theory has detached theoretical work from its scientific activity. Based on this, it doesn’t consider the societal implications of science seriously, and it doesn’t strive for an origin or historical process. It argues that scientific theory is a fully independent variable.

However, Horkheimer opposes this view and takes both situations into consideration, believing that this can prevent the instrumentalization of reason. According to him, scientists who perceive and advocate the separation of sociability and theory fulfill their social duties and responsibilities as citizens, and in doing so, the fact that they are also a part of society emerges. He not only presents this proposition and idea but also argues that the claim of objectivity in science is not true, and some circles suggest that this thought was put forth to strengthen his own viewpoint. Although the critical theory’s approach is correct from certain angles, it has also raised other questions. Primarily, the question of how independent critical theory truly is arises. Could critical theory, which constantly opposes this paradigm or these ideas, have been instrumentalized? Or does its utilization of universality indicate its instrumentalization within this paradigm? Given that inquiry and criticism are endless processes, it actually shows that none of these viewpoints are entirely correct or reliable. Following these uncertainties arising from critical theory, we can observe that Habermas developed and advanced the school’s views; Habermas interprets this situation from a political perspective and argues that science and politics must be intertwined. He explains this intertwining as a dialogue and advocates for transparency and complete societal participation. In this context, the governing structure of society comes into play, which varies in each country, and its boundaries are shaped by that country’s perception of right and wrong and its culture. Therefore, in reality, we cannot reach a definitive right or wrong conclusion because there is no ideal or perfect order. While these two groups of views can be compared, they cannot be deemed as fully justifiable. Another criticism, based on their critique of positivism, is their objection to the subject-object distinction. Scientific knowledge suggests that natural and societal aspects can be understood by evaluating both situations separately, and thus, dominance can be achieved over both. However, critical theory rejects that such dominance can be achieved, and it rejects this relationship.

Another topic is the critique directed towards modernity that comes with Weber’s rationalization explanation. They criticize this under the term “irrationalization”. According to Weber, this rationality forms the basis of modern society, centered around Enlightenment thought, bringing along freedom and modern, contemporary society. The Frankfurt School, taking a different perspective on this notion in the context of modern society brought about by industrialization, argues that individuals and reason have become tools, resulting in the passivity of social roles. It interprets the free structure of modern society as irrational and authoritarian. Ultimately, their main critique has always been the instrumentalization of reason; they have fundamentally stood against the Enlightenment thought.

…