I'm not either, I largely stayed away from that. The most interesting figures from my point of view were Walter Benjamin and Erich Fromm (the French Marxisant Michael Lowy made a study of Benjamin). The problem or limitation here is that a lot of this type of research is theoreticist and speculative (Left-Hegelianism), rather that experientially-based, empirical and action-oriented. It often conveys a rather sombre picture of monumental domination and oppression, ignoring the attempts at revolt against that, attempts to overturn that, subvert that, change that.
Hence, the Frankfurtian implications for politics are often conservative, rather than radicalising, feeding middleclass despair more than inciting workingclass revolt. In addition, in my opinion, it often confuses the continuities and discontinuities of Western culture, which is markedly different every new decade, i.e. the operation and use of the media is prone to change as well. The school claims to be critical and historical, but often isn't. Ernest Mandel maintained contact with Helmut Dahmer, but unfortunately Dahmer's very interesting books have not been translated into English as far as I know. My remark about the Bush image is based on skimming the biography of Bush, as compared to the media presentation of Bush, and the fact, that the image of political personalities these days is shaped and changed to fit with where the electorate and the elite is at. I consider - as I have mentioned before - that in reality, although the American Left heavily focuses on Bush (because of his limited public speaking ability), Bush is not even the politically most important figure in the Bush administration, more the "figurehead". The American Left seems to make very little attempt to relate the rise of Bush to the social totality of American society, to political selection processes, and explain why the circumstances of the elite might push Bush forward and institutionalise him. Thus, in Marx's old language, the American Left often tends to operate with an "idealist" or "mechanical materialist" view of politics rather than a dialectical, materialist one, it often cannot find the mediating links between objective trends and political personalities. Be that as it may, the Frankfurt School often offers useful heuristics, and this is particularly evident in the writings of Jurgen Habermas (I have not seriously studied his entire oeuvre though). Regards Jurriaan
