marcuse.html  Back to the Walter Benjamin Research SyndicateHomepage  Herbert MarcuseAggressiveness in Advanced IndustrialSociety (1967)From Negations : Essays in CriticalTheory by Herbert Marcuse.Copyright 1968 by Herbert Marcuse. Translationsfrom German copyright 1968 by Beacon Press. Reprinted by permission of BeaconPress, Boston.Herbert Marcuse on the InternetI propose to consider here the strains and stresses inthe so-called "affluent society," a phrase which has (rightlyor wrongly) been coined to describe contemporary American society. Its maincharacteristics are: (1) an abundant industrial and technical capacity whichis to a great extent spent in the production and distribution of luxurygoods, gadgets, waste, planned obsolescence, military or semimilitary equipment- in short, in what economists and sociologists used to call "unproductive"goods and services; (2) a rising standard of living, which also extendsto previously underprivileged parts of the population; (3) a high degreeof concentration of economic and political power, combined with a high degreeof organization and government intervention in the economy; (4) scientificand pseudoscientific investigation, control, and manipulation of privateand group behavior, both at work and at leisure (including the behaviorof the psyche, the soul, the unconscious, and the subconscious) for commercialand political purposes. All these tendencies are interrelated: they makeup the syndrome which expresses the normal functioning of the "affluentsociety." To demonstrate this interrelation is not my task here; Itake its existence as the sociological basis for the thesis which I wantto submit, namely, that the strains and stresses suffered by the individualin the affluent society are grounded in the normal functioning of this society(and of the individual!) rather than in its disturbances and diseases."Normal functioning": I think the definitionpresents no difficulties for the doctor. The organism functions normallyif it functions, without disturbance, in accord with the biological andphysiological makeup of the human body. The human faculties and capabilitiesare certainly very different among the members of the species, and the speciesitself has changed greatly in the course of its history, but these changeshave occurred on a biological and physiological basis which has remainedlargely constant. To be sure, the physician, in making his diagnosis andin proposing treatment, will take into account the patient's environment,upbringing, and occupation; these factors may limit the extent to whichnormal functioning can be defined and achieved, or they may even make thisachievement impossible, but as criterion and goal, normality remains a clearand meaningful concept. As such, it is identical with "health,"and the various deviations from it are to various degrees of "disease."The situation of the psychiatrist seems to be quite different.At first glance, normality seems to be defined along the same lines thephysician uses. The normal functioning of the mind (psyche, psyche-soma)is that which enables the individual to perform, to function in accord withhis position as child, adolescent, parent, as a single person or married,in accord with his job, profession, status. But this definition containsfactors of an entirely new dimension, namely, that of society, and societyis a factor of normality in a fare more essential sense than that of externalinfluence, so much so that "normal" seems to be a social and institutionalrather than individual condition. It is probably easy to agree on what isthe normal functioning of the digestive tract, the lungs, and the heart,but what is the normal functioning of the mind in love-making, in otherinterpersonal relations, at work and at leisure, at a meeting of a boardof directors, on the golf course, in the slums, in prison, in the army?While the normal functioning of the digestive tract or the lung is likelyto be the same in the case of a healthy corporation executive and of a healthylaborer, this does not hold true of their minds. In fact, the one wouldbe very abnormal if he regularly thought, felt, and operated like the other.And what is "normal" lovemaking, a "normal" family,a "normal" occupation?The psychiatrist might proceed like the general physicianand direct therapy to making the patient function within his family, inhis job or environment, while trying to influence and even change the environmentalfactors as much as this is in his power. The limits will soon make themselvesfelt, for example, if the mental strains and stresses of the patient arecaused, not merely by certain bad conditions in his job, in his neighborhood,in his social status, but by the very nature of the job, the neighborhood,the status itself - in their normal condition. Then making him normal forthis condition would mean normalizing the strains and stresses, or to putit more brutally: making him capable of being sick, of living his sicknessas health, without his noticing that he is sick precisely when he sees himselfand is seen as healthy and normal. This would be the case if his work is,by its very nature, "deadening," stupefying, wasteful (even thoughthe job pays well and is "socially" necessary), or if the personbelongs to a minority group which is underprivileged in the establishedsociety, traditionally poor and occupied mainly in menial and "dirty"physical labor. But this would also be the case (in very different forms)on the other side of the fence among the tycoons of business and politics,where efficient and profitable performance requires (and reproduces) thequalities of smart ruthlessness, moral indifference, and persistent aggressiveness.In such cases, "normal" functioning would be tantamount to a distortionand mutilation of a human being - no matter how modestly one may definethe human qualities of a human being. Erich Fromm wrote The Sane Society;it deals, not with the established, but with a future, society, the implicationbeing that the established society is not sane but insane. Is notthe individual who functions normally, adequately, and healthily as a citizenof a sick society - is not such an individual himself sick? And would nota sick society require an antagonistic concept of mental health, a meta-conceptdesignating (and preserving) mental qualities which are tabooed, arrested,or distorted by the "sanity" prevalent in the sick society? (Forexample, mental health equals the ability to live as a dissenter, to livea nonadjusted life.)As a tentative definition of "sick society" wecan say that a society is sick when its basic institutions and relations,its structure, are such that they do not permit the use of the availablematerial and intellectual resources for the optimal development and satisfactionof individual needs. The larger the discrepancy between the potential andactual human conditions, the greater the social need for what I term "surplus-repression,"that is, repression necessitated not by the growth and preservation of civilizationbut by the vested interest in maintaining an established society. Such surplus-repressionintroduces (over and above, or rather underneath, the social conflicts)new strains and stresses in the individuals. Usually handled by the normalworking of the social process, which assures adjustment and submission (fearof loss of job or status, ostracism, and so forth, no special enforcementpolicies with respect to the mind are required. But in the contemporaryaffluent society, the discrepancy between the established modes of existenceand the real possibilities of human freedom is so great that, in order toprevent an explosion, society has to insure a more effective mental coordinationof individuals: in its unconscious as well as conscious dimensions, thepsyche is opened up and subjected to systematic manipulation and control.When I speak of the surplus-repression "required"for the maintenance of a society, or of the need for systematic manipulationand control, I do not refer to individually experienced social needs andconsciously inaugurated policies: they may be thus experienced and inauguratedor they may not. I rather speak of tendencies, forces which can beidentified by an analysis of the existing society and which assert themselveseven if the policy makers are not aware of them. They express the requirementsof the established apparatus of production, distribution, and consumption- economic, technical, political, mental requirements which have to be fulfilledin order to assure the continued functioning of the apparatus on which thepopulation depends, and the continuing function of the social relationshipsderived from the organization of the apparatus. These objective tendenciesbecome manifest in the trend of the economy, in technological change, inthe domestic and foreign policy of a nation or group of nations, and theygenerate common, supraindividual needs and goals in the different socialclasses, pressure groups, and parties. Under the normal conditions of socialcohesion, the objective tendencies override or absorb individual interestand goals without exploding the society; however, the particular interestis not simply determined by the universal: the former has its own rangeof freedom, and contributes, in accordance with its social position, tothe shaping of the general interest - but short of a revolution, the particularneeds and goals will remain defined by the predominant objective tendencies.Marx believed that they assert themselves "behind the back" ofthe individuals; in the advanced societies of today, this is true only withstrong qualifications. Social engineering, scientific management of enterpriseand human relations, and manipulation of instinctual needs are practicedon the policy-making level and testify to the degree of awareness withinthe general blindness.As for the systematic manipulation and control of the psychein the advanced industrial society, manipulation and control for what, andby whom? Over and above all particular manipulation in the interest of certainbusinesses, policies, lobbies - the general objective purpose is to reconcilethe individual with the mode of existence which his society imposes on him.Because of the high degree of surplus-repression involved in such reconciliation,it is necessary to achieve a libidinal cathexis of the merchandise the individualhas to buy (or sell), the services he has to use (or perform), the fun hehas to enjoy, the status symbols he has to carry - necessary, because theexistence of the society depends on their uninterrupted production and consumption.In other words, social needs must become individual needs, instinctual needs.And to the degree to which the productivity of this society requires massproduction and mass consumption, these needs must be standardized, coordinated,generalized. Certainly, these controls are not a conspiracy, they are notcentralized in any agency or group of agencies (although the trend towardcentralization is gaining momentum); they are rather diffused throughoutthe society, exercised by the neighbors, the community, the peer groups,mass media, corporations, and (perhaps least) by the government. But theyare exercised with the help of, in fact rendered possible by, science, bythe social and behavioral sciences, and especially by sociology and psychology.As industrial sociology and psychology, or, more euphemistically, as "scienceof human relations," these scientific efforts have become an indispensabletool in the hands of the powers that be.These brief remarks are suggestive of the depth of society'singression into the psyche, the extent to which mental health, normality,is not that of the individual but of his society. Such a harmony betweenthe individual and society would be highly desirable if the society offeredthe individual the conditions for his development as a human being in accordwith the available possibilities of freedom, peace, and happiness (thatis in accord with the possible liberation of his life instincts), but itis highly destructive to the individual if these conditions do not prevail.Where they do not prevail, the healthy and normal individual is a humanbeing equipped with all the qualities which enable him to get along withothers in his society, and these very same qualities are the marks of repression,the marks of a mutilated human being, who collaborates in his own repression,in the containment of potential individual and social freedom, in the releaseof aggression. And this situation cannot be solved within the frameworkof any psychology - a solution can be envisaged only on the political level:in the struggle against society. To be sure, therapy could demonstrate thissituation and prepare the mental ground for such a struggle - but then psychiatrywould be a subversive undertaking.The question now is whether the strains in contemporaryAmerican society, in the affluent society, suggest the prevalence of conditionsessentially negative to individual development in the sense just discussed.Or, to formulate the question in terms more indicate of the approach I proposeto take: Do these strains vitiate the very possibility of "healthy"individual development - healthy defined in terms of optimal developmentof one's intellectual and emotional faculties? The question calls for anaffirmative answer, that is, this society vitiates individual developments,if the prevailing strains are related to the very structure of this societyand if they activate in its members instinctual needs and satisfactionswhich set the individuals against themselves so that they reproduce andintensify their own repression.At first glance, the strains in our society seem to bethose characteristic of any society which develops under the impact of greattechnological changes: they initiate new modes of work and of leisure andthereby affect all social relationships, and bring about a thorough transvaluationof values. Since physical labor tends to become increasingly unnecessaryand even wasteful, since the work of salaried employees too becomes increasingly"automatic" and that of the politicians and administrators increasinglyquestionable, the traditional content of the struggle for existence appearsmore meaningless and without substance the more it appears as unnecessarynecessity. But the future alternative, namely, the possible abolition of(alienated) labor seems equally meaningless, nay, frightening. And indeed,if one envisages this alternative as the progress and development of theestablished system, then the dislocation of the content of life tofree time suggest the shape of a nightmare: massive self-realization, fun,sport in a steadily shrinking space.But the threat of the "bogey of automation" isitself ideology. On the one hand it serves the perpetuation and reproductionof technically obsolete and unnecessary jobs and occupations (unemploymentas normal condition, even if comfortable, seems worse than stupefying routinework); on the other hand it justifies and promotes the education and trainingof the managers and organization men of leisure time, that is to say, itserves to prolong and enlarge control and manipulation.The real danger for the established system is not the abolitionof labor but the possibility of nonalienated labor as the basis of the reproductionof society. Not that people are no longer compelled to work, but that theymight be compelled to work for a very different life and in very differentrelations, that they might be given very different goals and values, thatthey might have to live with a very different morality - this is the "definitenegation" of the established system, the liberating alternative. Forexample, socially necessary labor might be organized for such efforts asthe rebuilding of cities and towns, the relocation of the places of work(so that people learn again how to walk), the construction of industrieswhich produce goods without built-in obsolescence, without profitable wasteand poor quality, and the subjection of the environment to the vital aestheticneeds of the organism. To be sure, to translate this possibility into realitywould mean to eliminate the power of the dominant interests which, by theirvery function in the society, are opposed to a development that would reduceprivate enterprise to a minor role, that would do away with the market economy,and with the policy of military preparedness, expansion, and intervention- in other words: a development that would reverse the entire prevailingtrend. There is little evidence for such a development. In the meantime,and with the new and terribly effective and total means provided by technicalprogress, the population is physically and mentally mobilized against thiseventuality: they must continue the struggle for existence in painful, costlyand obsolete forms.This is the real contradiction which translates itselffrom the social structure into the mental structure of the individuals.There, it activates and aggravates destructive tendencies which, in a hardlysublimated mode, are made socially useful in the behavior of the individuals,on the private as well as political level - in the behavior of the nationas a whole. Destructive energy becomes socially useful aggressive energy,and the aggressive behavior impels growth - growth of economic, political,and technical power. Just as in the contemporary scientific enterprise,so in the economic enterprise and in that of the nation as a whole, constructiveand destructive achievements, work for life and work for death, procreatingand killing are inextricably united. To restrict the exploitation of nuclearenergy would mean to restrict its peaceful as well as military potential;the amelioration and protection of life appear as by-products of the scientificwork on the annihilation of life; to restrict procreation would also meanto restrict potential manpower and the number of potential customers andclients. Now the (more or less sublimated) transformation of destructiveinto socially useful aggressive (and thereby constructive) energy is, accordingto Freud (on whose instinct-theory I base my interpretation) a normal andindispensable process. It is part of the same dynamic by which libido, eroticenergy, is sublimated and made socially useful; the two opposite impulsesare forced together and, united in this twofold transformation, they becomethe mental and organic vehicles of civilization. But no matter how closeand effective their union, their respective quality remains unchanged andcontrary: aggression activates destruction which "aims" at death,while libido seeks the preservation, protection, and amelioration of life.Therefore, it is only as long as destruction works in the service of Erosthat it serves civilization and the individual; if aggression becomes strongerthan its erotic counterpart, the trend is reversed. Moreover, in the Freudianconception, destructive energy cannot become stronger without reducing eroticenergy: the balance between the two primary impulses is a quantitative one;the instinctual dynamic is mechanistic, distributing an available quantumof energy between the two antagonists.I have briefly restated Freud's conception inasmuch asI shall use it to discuss the depth and character of the strains prevalentin American society. I suggest that the strains derive from the basic contradictionbetween the capabilities of this society, which could produce essentiallynew forms of freedom amounting to a subversion of the established institutionson the one hand, and the repressive use of these capabilities on the other.The contradiction explodes - and is at the same time "resolved,""contained" - in the ubiquitous aggression prevalent in this society.Its most conspicuous (but by no means isolated) manifestation is the militarymobilization and its effect on the mental behavior of the individuals, butwithin the context of the basic contradiction, aggressiveness is fed bymany sources. The following seem to be foremost: (1) The dehumanization of the process of productionand consumption. Technical progress is identical with the increasingelimination of personal initiative, inclination, taste, and need from theprovision of goods and services. This tendency is liberating if the availableresources and techniques are used for freeing the individual from laborand recreation which are required for the reproduction of the establishedinstitutions but are parasitic, wasteful, and dehumanizing in terms of theexisting technical and intellectual capabilities. The same tendency oftengratifies hostility.(2) The conditions of crowding, noise, and overtnesscharacteristic of mass society. As René Dubos has said, the needfor "quiet, privacy, independence, initiative, and some open space"are not "frills or luxuries but constitute real biological necessities."Their lack injures the instinctual structure itself. Freud has emphasizedthe "asocial" character of Eros - the mass society achieves an"oversocialization" to which the individual reacts "withall sorts of frustrations, repressions, aggressions, and fears which soondevelop into genuine neuroses."I mentioned, as the most conspicuous social mobilizationof aggressiveness, the militarization of the affluent society. This mobilizationgoes far beyond the actual draft of man-power and the buildup of the armamentindustry: its truly totalitarian aspects show forth in the daily mass mediawhich feed "public opinion." The brutalization of language andimage, the presentation of killing, burning, and poisoning and torture inflictedupon the victims of neocolonial slaughter is made in a common-sensible,factual, sometimes humorous style which integrates these horrors with thepranks of juvenile delinquents, football contests, accidents, stock marketreports, and the weatherman. This is no longer the "classical"heroizing of killing in the national interest, but rather its reductionto the level of natural events and contingencies of daily life.The consequence is a "psychological habituation ofwar" which is administered to a people protected from the actualityof war, a people who, by virtue of this habituation, easily familiarizesitself with the "kill rate" as it is already familiar with other"rates" (such as those of business or traffic or unemployment).The people are conditioned to live "with the hazards, the brutalities,and the mounting casualties of the war in Vietnam, just as one learns graduallyto live with the everyday hazards and casualties of smoking, of smog, orof traffic." [1] The photos which appearin the daily newspapers and in magazines with mass circulation, often innice and glossy color, show rows of prisoners laid out or stood up for "interrogation,"little children dragged through the dust behind armored cars, mutilatedwomen. They are nothing new ("such things happen in a war"), butit is the setting that makes the difference: their appearance in the regularprogram, in togetherness with the commercials, sports, local politics, andreports on the social set. And the brutality of power is further normalizedby its extension to the beloved automobile: the manufacturers sell a Thunderbird,Fury, Tempest, and the oil industry puts "a tiger in your tank."However, the administered language is rigidly discriminating:a specific vocabulary of hate, resentment, and defamation is reserved foropposition to the aggressive policies and for the enemy. The pattern constantlyrepeats itself. Thus, when students demonstrate against the war, it is a"mob" swelled by "bearded advocates of sexual freedom,"by unwashed juveniles, and by "hoodlums and street urchins" who"tramp" the streets, while the counterdemonstrations consist ofcitizens who gather. In Vietnam, "typical criminal communist violence"is perpetrated against American "strategic operations." The Redshave the impertinence to launch "a sneak attack" (presumably theyare supposed to announce it beforehand and to deploy in the open); theyare "evading a death trap" (presumably they should have stayedin). The Vietcong attack American barracks "in the dead of night"and kill American boys (presumably, Americans only attack in broad daylight,don't disturb the sleep of the enemy, and don't kill Vietnamese boys). Themassacre of hundred thousands of communists (in Indonesia) is called "impressive"- a comparable "killing rate" suffered by the other side wouldhardly have been honored with such an adjective. To the Chinese, the presenceof American troops in East Asia is a threat to their "ideology,"while presumably the presence of Chinese troops in Central or South Americawould be a real, and not only ideological, threat to the United States.The loaded language proceeds according to the Orwellianrecipe of the identity of opposites: in the mouth of the enemy, peace meanswar, and defense is attack, while on the righteous side, escalation is restraint,and saturation bombing prepares for peace. Organized in this discriminatoryfashion, language designates a priori the enemy as evil in his entiretyand in all his actions and intentions.Such mobilization of aggressiveness cannot be explainedby the magnitude of the communist threat: the image of the ostensible enemyis inflated out of all proportion to reality. What is at stake is ratherthe continued stability and growth of a system which is threatened by itsown irrationality - by the narrow base on which its prosperity rests, bythe dehumanization which its wasteful and parasitic affluence demands. Thesenseless war is itself part of this irrationality and thus of the essenceof the system. What may have been a minor involvement at the beginning,almost an accident, a contingency of foreign policy, has become a test casefor the productivity, competitiveness, and prestige of the whole. The billionsof dollars spent for the war effort are a political as well as economicstimulus (or cure): a big way of absorbing part of the economic surplus,and of keeping the people in line. Defeat in Vietnam may well be the signalfor other wars of liberation closer to home - and perhaps even for rebellionat home.To be sure, the social utilization of aggressiveness belongsto the historical structure of civilization and has been a powerful vehicleof progress. However, here too, there is a stage where quantity may turninto quality and subvert the normal balance between the two primary instinctsin favor of destruction. I mentioned the "bogey man" of automation.In fact the real spectre for the affluent society is the possible reductionof labor to a level where the human organism need no longer function asan instrument of labor. The mere quantitative decline in needed human laborpower militates against the maintenance of the capitalist mode of production(as of all other exploitative modes of production). The system reacts bystepping up the production of goods and services which either do not enlargeindividual consumption at all, or enlarge it with luxuries - luxuries inthe face of persistent poverty, but luxuries which are necessities for occupyinga labor force sufficient to reproduce the established economic and politicalinstitutions. To the degree to which this sort of work appears as superfluous,senseless, and unnecessary while necessary for earning a living, frustrationis built into the very productivity of this society, and aggressivenessis activated. And to the degree to which the society in its very structurebecomes aggressive, the mental structure of its citizens adjusts itself:the individual becomes at one and the same time more aggressive and morepliable and submissive, for he submits by a society which, by virtue ofits affluence and power, satisfies his deepest (and otherwise greatly repressed)instinctual needs. And these instinctual needs apparently find their libidinalreflection in the representatives of the people. the chairman of the ArmedServices Committee of the United States Senate, Senator Russell of Georgia,was struck by this fact. He is quoted as saying: There is something about preparing for destruction that causes men to be more careless in spending money than they would be if they were building for constructive purposes. Why that is, I do not know; but I have observed, over a period of almost thirty years in the Senate, that there is something about buying arms with which to kill, to destroy, to wipe out cities, and to obliterate great transportation systems which causes men not to reckon the dollar cost as closely as they do when they think about proper housing and the care of the health of human beings. [2]I have argued elsewhere the question of how one can possiblygauge and historically compare the aggression prevalent in a specific society;instead of restating the case, I want now to focus on different aspects,on the specific forms in which aggression today is released and satisfied.The most telling one, and the one which distinguishes thenew from the traditional forms, is what I call technological aggressionand satisfaction. The phenomenon is quickly described: the act of aggressionis physically carried out by a mechanism with a high degree of automatism,of far greater power than the individual human being who sets it in motion,keeps it in motion, and determines its end or target. The most extreme caseis the rocket or missile; the most ordinary example the automobile. Thismeans that the energy, the power activated and consummated is the mechanical,electrical, or nuclear energy of "things" rather than the instinctualenergy of a human being. Aggression is, as it were, transferred from a subjectto an object, or is at least "mediated" by an object, and thetarget is destroyed by a thing rather than by a person. This change in therelation between human and material energy, and between the physical andmental part of aggression (man becomes the subject and agent of aggressionby virtue of his mental rather than physical faculties) must also affectthe mental dynamic. I submit a hypothesis which is suggested by the innerlogic of the process: with the "delegation" of destruction toa more or less automated thing or group and system of things, the instinctualsatisfaction of the human person is "interrupted," reduced, frustrated,"super-sublimated." And such frustration makes for repetitionand escalation: increasing violence, speed, enlarged scope. At the sametime, personal responsibility, conscience, and the sense of guilt is weakened,or rather diffused, displaced from the actual context in which the aggressionwas committed (i.e. bombing raids), and relocated in a more or less innocuouscontext (impoliteness, sexual inadequacy, etc.). In this reaction too, theeffect is a considerable weakening of the sense of guilt, and the defense(hatred, resentment) is also redirected from the real responsible subject(the commanding officer, the government) to a substitute person: not I asa (morally and physically) acting person did it, but the thing, the machine.The machine: the word suggests that an apparatus consisting of human beingsmay be substituted for the mechanical apparatus: the bureaucracy, the administration,the party, or organization is the responsible agent; I, the individual person,was only the instrumentality. And an instrument cannot, in any moral sense,be responsible or be in a state of guilt. In this way, another barrier againstaggression, which civilization had erected in a long and violent processof discipline is removed. And the expansion of advanced capitalism becomesinvolved in a fateful psychical dialectic which enters into and propelsits economic and political dynamic: the more powerful and "technological"aggression becomes, the less is it apt to satisfy and pacify the primaryimpulse, and the more it tends toward repetition and escalation.To be sure, the use of instruments of aggression is asold as civilization itself, but there is a decisive difference between technologicalaggression and the more primitive forms. The latter were not only quantitativelydifferent (weaker): they required activation and engagement of thebody to a much higher degree than the automated or semiautomated instrumentsof aggression. The knife, the "blunt instrument," even the revolverare far more "part" of the individual who uses them and they associatehim more closely with his target. Moreover, and most important, their use,unless effectively sublimated and in the service of the life instincts (asin the case of the surgeon, household, etc.), is criminal - individual crime- and as such subject to severe punishment. In contrast, technological aggressionis not a crime. The speeding driver of an automobile or motor boat is notcalled a murderer even if he is one; and certainly the missile-firing engineersare not.Technological aggression releases a mental dynamic whichaggravates the destructive, antierotic tendencies of the puritan complex.The new modes of aggression destroy without getting one's hands dirty, one'sbody soiled, one's mind incriminated. The killer remains clean, physicallyas well as mentally. The purity of his deadly work obtains added sanctionif it is directed against the national enemy in the national interest.The (anonymous) lead article in Les Temps Modernes (January1966) links the war in Vietnam with the puritan tradition in the UnitedStates. The image of the enemy is that of dirt in its most repulsive forms;the unclean jungle is his natural habitat, disembowelment and beheadingare his natural ways of action. Consequently, the burning of his refuge,defoliation, and the poisoning of his foodstuff are not only strategic butalso moral operations: removing of contagious dirt, clearing the way forthe order of political hygiene and righteousness. And the mass purging ofthe good conscience from all rational inhibitions leads to the atrophy ofthe last rebellion of sanity against the madhouse: no satire, no ridiculeattends the moralists who organize and defend the crime. Thus one of themcan, without becoming a laughingstock, publicly praise as the "greatestperformance in our nation's history," the indeed historical achievementof the richest, most powerful, and most advanced country of the world unleashingthe destructive force of its technical superiority on one of the poorest,weakest, and most helpless countries of the world.The decline of responsibility and guilt, their absorptionby the omnipotent technical and political apparatus also tends to invalidateother values which were to restrain and sublimate aggression. While themilitarization of society remains the most conspicuous and destructive manifestationof this tendency, its less ostensible effects in the cultural dimensionshould not be minimized. One of these effects is the disintegration of thevalue of truth. The media enjoy a large dispensation from the commitmentto truth, and in a very special way. The point is not that the media lie("lie" presupposes commitment to truth), they rather mingle truthand half-truth with omission, factual reporting with commentary and evaluation,information with publicity and propaganda - all this made into an overwhelmingwhole through editorializing. The editorially unpleasant truths (and howmany of the most decisive truths are not unpleasant?) retreat between thelines, or hide, or mingle harmoniously with nonsense, fun, and so-calledhuman interest stories. And the consumer is readily inclined to take allthis for granted - he buys it even if he knows better. Now the commitmentto the truth has always been precarious, hedged with strong qualifications,suspended, or suppressed - it is only in the context of the general anddemocratic activation of aggressiveness that the devaluation of truth assumesspecial significance. For truth is a value in the strict sense inasmuchas it serves the protection and amelioration of life, as a guide in man'sstruggle with nature and with himself, with his own weakness and his owndestructiveness. In this function, truth is indeed a matter of the sublimatedlife instincts, Eros, of intelligence becoming responsible and autonomous,striving to liberate life from dependence on unmastered and repressive forces.And with respect to this protective and liberating function of truth, itsdevaluation removes another effective barrier against destruction.The encroachment of aggression on the domain of the lifeinstincts also devalues the aesthetic dimension. In Eros and CivilizationI have tried to show the erotic component in this dimension. Nonfunctional,that is to say, not committed to the functioning of a repressive society,the aesthetic values have been strong protectors of Eros in civilization.Nature is part of this dimension. Eros seeks, in polymorphous forms, itsown sensuous world of fulfillment, its own "natural" environment.But only in a protected world - protected from daily business, from noise,crowds, waste, only thus can it satisfy the biological need for happiness.The aggressive business practices which turn ever more spaces of protectivenature into a medium of commercial fulfillment and fun thus do not merelyoffend beauty - they repress biological necessities.Once we agree to discuss the hypothesis that, in advancedindustrial society surplus-aggression is released in quite unsuspected and"normal" behavior, we may see it even in areas which are far removedfrom the more familiar manifestations of aggression, for instance the styleof publicity and information practiced by the mass media. Characteristicis the permanent repetition: the same commercial with the same text or picturebroadcast or televised again and again; the same phrases and clichéspoured out by the purveyors and makers of information again and again; thesame programs and platforms professed by the politicians again and again.Freud arrived at his concept of the death instinct in the context of hisanalysis of the "repetition compulsion": he associated with itthe striving for a state of complete inertia, absence of tension, returnto the womb, annihilation. Hitler knew well the extreme function of repetition:the biggest lie, often enough repeated, will be acted upon and acceptedas truth. Even in its less extreme use, constant repetition, imposed uponmore or less captive audiences, may be destructive: destroying mental autonomy,freedom of thought, responsibility and conducive to inertia, submission,rejection of change. The established society, the master of repetition,becomes the great womb for its citizens. To be sure, this road to inertiaand this reduction of tension is one of high and not very satisfactory sublimation:it does not lead to an instinctual nirvana of satisfaction. However, itmay well reduce the stress of intelligence, the pain and tension which accompanyautonomous mental activity - thus it may be an effective aggression againstthe mind in its socially disturbing, critical functions.These are highly speculative hypotheses on the sociallyand mentally fateful character of aggression in our society. Aggressionis (in most cases) socially useful destructiveness - and yet fateful becauseof its self-propelling character and scope. In this respect too, it is badlysublimated and not very satisfying. If Freud's theory is correct, and thedestructive impulse strives for the annihilation of the individual's ownlife no matter how long the "detour" via other lives and targets,then we may indeed speak of a suicidal tendency on a truly social scale,and the national and international play with total destruction may wellhave found a firm basis in the instinctual structure of individuals.[1] I.Ziferstein, in the UCLA Daily Bruin, Los Angeles, May 24, 1966. Seealso: M. Grotjahn, "Some Dynamics of Unconscious and Symbolic Communicationin Present-Day Television," The Psychoanalytic Study of Society,III, pp. 356ff., and Psychiatric Aspects of the Prevention of NuclearWar, Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (New York, 1964), passim.[2] Quotedin The Nation, August 25, 1962, pp. 65-66, in an article by SenatorWilliam Proxmire. From Negations : Essaysin Critical Theory by Herbert Marcuse.Copyright 1968 by HerbertMarcuse. Translations from German copyright 1968 by Beacon Press. Reprintedby permission of BeaconPress, Boston. Return to topMarcuse Links Illuminations: The Critical Theory Website: Recalling the title of Benjamin's first collection of essays in English, this site is a research resource within the University of Texas at Austin's department of humanities. It maintains a collection of articles, excerpts, and chapters from and about the Frankfurt School theorists, Benjamin,Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, Habermas and Horkheimer. Douglas Kellner, noted scholar on Herbert Marcuse, has thirty essays, articles and reviews, from Marcuse and Bloch to Brecht, Baudrillard and advertising. Reclaiming the Fragments: On the Messianic Materialism of Walter Benjamin by Stephen Bronner, a two-part essay, has also recently been added. Their critical links section is excellent. Herbert Marcuse's Homepage [Filip Kovacevic's tribute to Marcuse features extensive excerpts from Marcuse's writings and many links to secondary essays on-line] Dialectique [Herbert Marcuse bibliographie/ Etude sur Marcuse--en français] Marcuse: Obstinacy as a Theoretical Virtue [an appreciation by Andrew Feenberg] Theorists and Critics [Sarah Zupko's Cultural Studies Center features selections from Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man and a selection of secondary literature on-line] The Naked Marx: [Robert M. Young's review of Marcuse's Eros and Civilization ] Technology, War and Fascism: Collected papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume One (1998) Edited by Douglas Kellner , University of Texas at Austin. Routledge Press publisher's review & ordering information.Auf Deutsch Herbert-Marcuse-Archiv, Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt a.M. [In English] Brief von Marcuse an Günther Nenning Herbert Marcuse Photograph einer der Väter der Kritischen Theorie, die dem neuen Gesellschaftsmodell der "68er" zugrundelag, an der Freien Universität Berlin 1968 [an important photograph of Marcuse addressing the Free University in Berlin in 1968] Faschismus als Feind:Acht Deutschland-Analysen aus dem Marcuse-Nachlaß Rebellische Subjektivität, Nikolaus Halmer, Der Standard, Freiburg, 17. Juli 1998 Back to the Walter Benjamin Research SyndicateHomepage |
|
