Lukács’ famously asked: “What is orthodox Marxism?” His answer was that a certain method was quintessential. What if we ask the orthodox question about Critical Theory? The answer in this case, I propose, is not a particular method. Moreover, what’s critical about Critical Theory is also not – contrary to prevailing opinions in the literature – a program of justification. In fact, only without such a program can Critical Theory be adequately and appropriately critical. The position I advocate returns to insights from Horkheimer’s writings of the 1930s (and Adorno’s work). Indeed, it is also orthodox in another sense: taking the conviction of a partisan interest – the interest in abolishing social injustice, misery and unfreedom – as the only general criterion for Critical Theory. Its task is to contribute to the struggle against the aforementioned negative elements through conceptual work, self-reflection, and a critical appropriation of the genuine insights of traditional theorising. I conclude by outlining briefly the implications of this position for the mode of approaching social philosophy (and specifically the idea of social pathology)
