“正统”马克思主义即在第二国际占主流地位的马克思主义，其理论的教条化、实证化，及其在实践中的挫败，是西方马克思主义开启所应对的直接时代背景。西方马克思主义开启呈现出从经济批判、政治批判向文化批判的理论走向。20世纪30年代，霍克海默以对“正统”马克思主义拥护者的不满和批判为起点，从文化批判转向社会批判。他认为，传统理论是“正统”马克思主义实证化、教条化的真正理论背景和根源，从而转入到对传统理论的批判和对社会批判理论的建构上来。可以说，社会批判理论的建构是西方马克思主义开启的理论结果。社会批判理论的主导理论方向是：一、通过回复社会历史的视域，确立社会历史整体的理论视角；二、通过回复社会历史现实为人的活动产物的自觉，确立被沦丧的人的主体地位。从而，社会批判理论成为以社会历史整体为视角的人的解放自身的社会历史性反思理论。 然而，由于缺失批判的标准，法兰克福学派的社会批判理论的理论困境具体表现为其在批判理论的前提、展开和建构结论上都存在着基本理性根据的缺失：其一、缺失批判的标准作为前提；其二、批判的具体论证和展开，更多的是呈现为对各种异化的理性“感受”，缺乏清晰、系统、深刻的理性论证和驾驭；其三、批判的建构往往走向了某种意义和程度的乌托邦。 面对社会批判理论的困难，社会批判理论发展到哈贝马斯即出现了理论转向——走向语言哲学的交往理性。霍耐特作为法兰克福研究所的第三代领军人物，并不认可哈贝马斯以语言为基础的规范的交往理性理论建构，开始了向承认理论的转向。当代，出现了以后现代马克思主义、后马克思主义、女性主义马克思主义和情境主义马克思主义为代表的批判理论延展。哈贝马斯的交往理性具有根本的困难，表现为交往理性的限度，交往理性的失范，交往理性的乌托邦旨趣；霍耐特的承认理论是没有将黑格尔的意识哲学进行转型，而直接使用黑格尔的承认理论，且限于对社会冲突的道德维度进行分析；当代四种流派对批判理论的延展，大多是立足于当代西方社会的新状况，从各自较为微观的特定角度仅仅开辟了新的视角而已。 尝试探索未来社会批判理论必要的和可能的发展出路，其基本着眼点应该在于对西方马克思主义哲学的理论背景资源探索上重视康德，在理论研究方式上重新定位于重视共同性的深层理论问题，在理论出发点上确立社会历史实践整体观等尝试。

The so-called “orthodox” Marxism was what was mainstream Marxism in the Second International. Its theoretical dogmatism, positivism, and its frustration in practice were the direct historical background for the opening of Western-Marxism, which initiated the theoretical orientation of economic, political, and cultural critics. In the 1930s, M. Max Horkheimer, starting from his discontents with the advocates of “orthodox” Marxism, turned from cultural critic to social critic. He argued that traditional theories were the true background and origin of the positivism and dogmatism of “orthodox” Marxism. Suffice it to say that the construction of social critic theory is a natural product of Western Marxism.However, due to the lack of criterion for critiques, the social critic theories of Frankfurt School fall into various kinds of predicaments. First of all, they lack criterion as premise for their critics. Secondly, the concrete development of their critics displays as rational “sensations” of various kinds of alienations, rather than clear, systematic, and profound theoretical argumentation. Thirdly, the constructions of their critics always end in Utopia in certain sense and to certain extent.Faced with such predicaments, social critic theory took a theoretical turn in the hands of Jurgen Habermas to the communication reason of the philosophy of language. Horkheimer, as the third generation leader of Frankfurt School, did not admit Habermas’s theoretical construction of nomothetical communication reason, taking language as its basis. In the present time, critic theory extends itself in such various forms as post-modern Marxism, post-Marxism, feminist Marxism, and situational Marxism. Habermas’s communication reason has its fundamental difficulties, such as the limits of communication reason, the anomie of communication reason, and the Utopian purport of communication reason. The contemporary four currents of critic theory base themselves on the new conditions of contemporary Western society, only starting some new directions from their respective perspectives on somewhat microcosmic level.Any attempt to investigate the possible future development and outlet of social critic theory should be based on an exploration into Western Marxism’s background theoretical resources with an emphasis on Kant’s significance. Theoretically, it should be relocated on the more profoundly deep problematics concerning macrocosmic common issues, taking the whole-scale viewpoint of socio-historical practice as theoretical point of departure.