Does music sound all the same nowadays? This article revives the Frankfurt School’s critique of the culture industry by recontextualizing it within contemporary financialized platform capitalism. We argue that Digital Streaming Platforms (DSPs) like Spotify showcase the proliferation of the future-oriented asset logic inherent to both financialization and platformization. This process intensifies the standardization of music that was first recognized by Theodor Adorno. The playlist is the central device of this assetization of music, contributing to a noticeable decrease in sonic and stylistic diversity in music. We illustrate this novel development through a diachronic content analysis of hip-hop music, comparing Apple Music’s Hip-Hop/R&B Hits: 2002 playlist based on hip-hop charts from the pre-DSP era and Spotify’s largest in-house curated playlist RapCaviar (from 2022). Rather than democratizing the music market, as Spotify is often hailed to do, the twenty-first-century culture industry facilitates further homogenization of artistic expression. Our findings contribute to ongoing political economy debates about the effects of financialization, platformization, and assetization on music, culture, and the everyday.

Critical International Relations Theory (CIRT) is in ‘crisis’. Some argue for a recovery of ‘the inspirational quality’ of Horkheimer and Adorno’s first-generation negative critique. Certainly the challenge of right-wing populism begs questions of CIRT’s ‘consolatory’ cosmopolitanism. I have two concerns however. First, these proposals underplay the reasons why first-generation theorising failed; secondly, CIRT risks throwing the second-generation Habermas–Linklater ‘baby’ out with the ‘bathwater’ at the moment it has particular value. I do two things. I look back to pre-Habermasian Critical Theory, but I set a future agenda based on the Pragmatism of John Dewey. This helps CIRT realise the emancipatory potential in IR’s recent ‘practice turn’, addressing concerns that CIRT is disengaged. It also brings balance to negative and positive critiques, offering a novel challenge to critical/problem-solving binaries in ways that speak to real-world challenges like climate change. Second, I look forward from Habermasian-inspired theory to the third-generation (and Pragmatist-inspired) ‘recognition theory’ of Honneth. This brings a critical edge to IR ontological security studies, further develops the praxeological branch of CIRT, and better informs the political left’s response to the alienating effects of the liberal international order and the rise of right-wing populism.

The breakdown of liberal hegemony, the rise of the New Right, and the violent realignment of world order have been accompanied by a retreat from traditional humanist concerns in critical international theory, including emancipation, political subjectivity, social totality, universal history, and the anticipatory-utopian dimension of critique. Scholars have identified numerous shortcomings in first-generation and contemporary critical International Relations (IR), and our discipline still questions its purpose and object of study. This article proposes a more radical and realistic approach to critical international theory based on a reappraisal of Andrew Linklater’s oeuvre. It frames the critical project in IR as a Lakatosian research programme and calls for a progressive problem shift that foregrounds what Linklater, drawing from Kant and Marx, calls the necessarily tripartite structure of critical theory. I argue that by tracing an alternative path through classical sources of the tradition, pivoting from Hegel and the deep social relationalism that follows, while integrating a tripartite commitment with a more rigorous reflexive methodology, we can revitalise the emancipatory approach to IR and provide renewed purpose and direction to the discipline. Grounded in a left-Hegelian tradition of thought, the argument aspires to resonate with other critical theoretical traditions both within and beyond IR.

Frankfurt School Critical Theory emerged to challenge systems of oppression, but it carries a fatal flaw: it’s stuck in the Enlightenment mindset that birthed colonialism. It talks about freedom – but only from a Eurocentric lens, ignoring the wisdom of the Global South. Enter Neo-Vedanta, a revolutionary reinterpretation of ancient Indian philosophy, propelled by Swami Vivekananda’s call for a spiritual and social awakening. While Critical Theory exposes power structures, Neo-Vedanta goes deeper, arguing that real freedom starts within. It dismantles the ego – the root of domination – and replaces it with seva, selfless service. For Vivekananda, liberation wasn’t about personal enlightenment or Western-style progress; it was about merging the self with humanity’s collective struggle. This isn’t about picking sides – it’s about creating something new: a world where liberation isn’t a Western export but a global conversation. True freedom, Neo-Vedanta reminds us, isn’t just about breaking chains. It’s about dissolving the very idea of control – and finding power in service, not domination. Liberation was never meant to belong to one civilization alone.

Over the twentieth century, various types of synthetic fibers were invented, mass-produced, and widely distributed across the globe. This article analyzes the political power that was exercised to generate this innovation in musical instrument industries. Synthetics also contributed to the growth of the global garment, textile, sporting goods, and military industries, among many others. This article specifically discusses the politics behind the transition from the use of silk to nylon during the World War II and Cold War eras. Modern cultural industry's tendency in the mid- to late twentieth century to favor synthetic and other “man-made” fibers over natural ones was importantly shaped by political-economic—and political-ecological—conflicts between the United States and Japan, especially during World War II. These conflicts prepared the ground for the rise of global capitalism's synthetic regime.

This reflection explores the transformative power of critical theory through a quality improvement (QI) project creating culturally relevant dietary resources for Pacific Islander communities in Washington State, USA. Food injustice and lack of food sovereignty are examined as manifestations of modern-day colonialism perpetuated by capitalist-driven social structures. The methodology employed critical reflection, defined as the process of examining assumptions and power relations that shape practice, central to critical theory. Iterative group discussions aimed to understand the impact of individual and collective assumptions, power dynamics, and oppression on the project’s conceptualization, implementation, and evaluation.

Specific recommendations are integrated into the discussion to aid those replicating similar protocols, emphasizing actionable steps such as engaging with the community at all project stages. The research team, composed of osteopathic medical students and a critical theory expert, engaged in reflexivity to understand how social locations and lived experiences influenced perceptions. Despite the goal of fostering cultural inclusivity, limitations in engaging the Pacific Islander community throughout the project lifecycle highlighted the need for cultural humility and participatory action methodology.

This study underscores the importance of understanding the history and socio-political context of marginalized communities to avoid perpetuating colonial practices and trauma. It emphasizes the necessity for medical schools to incorporate sociological theories into curricula to promote compassionate, culturally appropriate care and research. By critically examining positionality and engaging in transformative learning, the group advocates for systemic changes towards a more equitable global healthcare system.

Through critical reflection, the group has come to understand how lived experiences have shaped perceptions of oppression, which are entrenched within and perpetuated by social institutions. Actionable items from these reflections are presented to help future practitioners and educators apply cultural humility, community empowerment, and critical theory in QI projects.

This article analyzes the affective economy of West Germany's postwar society. After delineating the intellectual history of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research's “Gruppenexperiment,” which consisted of 137 group interviews with different segments of West German society, my article focuses on one transcript of a 1950 group discussion of young fashion-designer apprentices. Based on a close reading, I study how the younger generation in West Germany constructed a passive and privatist self-image in which they could both articulate their emotional dissociation from National Socialism while clinging to antidemocratic, racist, and antisemitic feelings in metamorphosed form. The micrological focus of the analysis of the group's emotions is balanced by a rereading of both Helmut Schelsky's study about the “skeptical generation” and texts by researchers associated with the Institute for Social Research who came to markedly different conclusions about the West German youth.

This article examines the ways in which the language of legal rights is invoked by those seeking to improve the treatment of animals. Drawing from a range of analytical, realist, and critical legal and social theorists, it argues that certain argumentative techniques commonly employed to justify the extension of legal rights to animals may serve to strengthen and reproduce the very forms of exploitation they seek to challenge. The article begins by identifying and critiquing the binary characterisation of rights/welfare and property/personality in liberal animal law scholarship. It then employs the insights of Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin to expose and critique various appeals to an ‘exterior’ or ‘extra-legal’ domain which functions to stabilise the meaning of these doctrinal categories. In doing so, it explores the strategic viability of rights discourse in the animal advocacy movement with a view to highlighting the limitations of liberal constructions of animal rights.