Acknowledgments One of the most gratifying aspects of writing The Dialectical Imag- ination was the opportunity to meet many people who played crucial roles in the history of the Frankfurt School. Included among them were critics as well as defenders of its historical and intellectual rec- ord,a record that has always been a stimulus to controversy. I have learned much from both sides and am pleased at this time to be abie to acknowledge my debts in print. Equally welcome is the opportu nity to thank friends, teachers, and colleagues who provided support of various kinds during all stages of the book's preparation. Among the former Institut figures who graciously granted me in- terviews were Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor w Adorno(shortly before his death in the summer of 1969), Erich Fromm, Karl August Wittfogel, Paul Massing, Ernst Schachtel, Olga Lang, Gerhard Meyer, M. i. Finley, and Joseph and Alice Maier. Horkheimer, Marcuse, Fromm, and Wittfogel also took the time to comment on sections of the manuscript after its completion as a doc- toral dissertation in history at Harvard. Jurgen Habermas, Alfred Schmidt, and Albrecht Wellmer, of the more recent generation of Frankfurt School adherents, were also willing to submit to my ques- tions. Although we never actually met, Felix J. Weil and I carried c an extensive and spirited correspondence concerning many facets of the Institut, in whose creation he played so important a role. His reactions to sections of the manuscript were invaluable, although our interpretations of certain issues remain somewhat at odds. Gretel Adorno and Gladys Meyer were also very helpful correspondents There were three participants in the Instituts history whose coop eration went well beyond anything I might have reasonably ex pected. Friedrich Pollock spent countless hours with me in Montag- nola, Switzerland, in March, 1969, reliving his almost fifty years of involvement with the Institut. After I returned to Cambridge, we maintained a lively correspondence about the progress of my work
xiv dialectical imagination He painstakingly commented on the chapters I was able to submit for his scrutiny before his death in December, 1970. The enormous pride Professor Pollock demonstrated in the Institut's achievement was such that i deeply regret not having been able to present him ith a completed manuscript. Leo lowenthal was one of the first members of the Frankfurt School with whom I spoke at the beginning of my research. At Berkeley, in the summer of 1968, he gave generously of his time and aterials, patiently explaining those references in his valuable corre- spondence with Horkheimer that had eluded me. In subsequent years, his interest in my work remained keen, and like Pollock he commented with greu interpretations of specific issues were occa- t care and sensitivity on the first drafts of my chapters. Although or sionally different, he never sought to impose his views on mine. Sinc my arrival at Berkeley, he has continued to give support and advice on the completion of the manuscript. Of all the benefits of my re- search, his friendship has been one of those I value most highly Finally, Paul Lazarsfeld offered me constant encouragement and wise counsel throughout the course of my wolerested in its work and peripherally involved in its affairs from the mid-thirties. The documents and letters he had preserved from that time were gener- ously put at my disposal. Moreover, his theoretical distance from the Frankfurt School helped me gain a perspective on its work I might otherwise have lacked In short, my debt to the surviving members of the Institut is con- siderable. Nothing symbolizes this more strikingly than Professor Horkheimer's willingness to compose some prefatory remarks, de- pite a very serious illness No less an acknowledgment of gratitude is due to others who con tributed to the making of this book Of my former teachers, H. Stuart Hughes, who directed the dissertation, warrants a special mention for his many kindnesses throughout the course of my work. I also owe much to Fritz K. Ringer, who first aroused my interest in Ger man intellectual history, for the care and severity with which he criti sized the manuscript. To my friends in Cambridge I can only repeat in print what I hope they already know of my deep appreciation Paul Brenes, M Michael Timo Gilmore, Paul Weissman, and Lewis Wurgaft did much more to sustain me during my graduate career than read my chapters with a critical eye. I am also very grateful for the advice of newer friends whom I have come to know through a common interest in the Frankfurt School: Matthias Becker. Edward
Acknowledgments xXXV Breslin, Susan Buck, Sidney Lipshires, Jeremy J. Shapiro, Trent Shroyer, Gary Ulmen, and Shierry Weber. I have also greatly ben efited from the opportunity to speak to older scholars concerned with the work of the Frankfurt School, including Everett C. Hughes, George Lichtheim, Adolph Lowe, and Kurt H. Wolff. My new colleagues at Berkeley have shown me in the short time I have been in their company that considerable vitality can still be found in the old notion of a community of scholars. The book has been improved in particular by the comments of Fryar Calhoun, Gerald Feldman, Samuel Haber, Martin Malia, Nicholas Riasa novsky, Wolfgang Sauer, and Irwin Scheiner. I would also like to ex press my thanks to William Phillips of Little, Brown, whose unwav- ering enthusiasm and keen editorial eye have been of great help throughout. My fine typists, Annette Slocombe of Lexington, Massa chusetts, and Boyano Ristich and her staff at the Institute of Interna tional Studies at Berkeley, were invaluable in getting the manuscript into shape for publication, as was Boris Frankel, who helped me with the index. Finally, it is a particular pleasure to be able to acknowl edge the support of the Danforth Foundation, financial and other wise, which sustained me during my graduate career I hope that this list of acknowledgments has not seemed unduly long, for I am anxious to convey the extent to which The Dialectical Imagination approached a collective project. Many of the strengths of the text derive from that fact; the weaknesses, alas, are my own re- sponsibility
