Talk:Herbert Marcuse/Archive 1

Note from grandson
Herbert (my grandfather) was not really a "soldier" in World War I. A physical impairment (flat feet, I think) kept him out of combat. He once quipped that he "wiped horses' asses" in Berlin (he was assigned to a cavalry unit). Also, his participation in the 1918 revolution was limited. He did join one of the Workers' and Soldiers' Councils in Berlin, but he never claimed to have played an active role. Just as a historical sidenote, "the forces of the Weimar Republic" did not crush that revolution. The Weimar constitution was completed in August 1919, well after the revolution had been crushed (in January 1919 revolutionary leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered; the last revolutionary gov't was put down in Munich in March). It is true that those who put down the revolutionary movement worked with the later leaders of the Weimar government, but they were and remained outsiders until the early 1930s, when the Nazis were gaining followers.

Finally, Habermas did not really "care for him" during his final illness. Habermas did live nearby in Starnberg and was present at that time, but Herbert was in a hospital with his wife and son at his side around the clock. Rudi Dutschke's recently published diary contains some interesting entries about Rudi's conversations with Habermas during Herbert's final days.

I am, by the way, the actual author of most of the text on the wikipedia site. It was taken verbatim from the site I created and maintain about Herbert: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/#biography. From what I glean from the wiki "page history," my text was taken in September 2001 by "Stephen Lea, a psychology professor and www-enthusiast from Exeter in south-west England." Since then, four sentences were added by others (two of which I correct here).

Harold Marcuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.94.95 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2004 (UTC)

Took out seemingly irrelevant reference
An anonymous person added the following text today: "Nothing has been said about his relation to Emmy Marcuse, the first woman to graduate from UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall with a JD degree in 1906." Since it doesn't seem to me that the relationship or comparison is relevant, I took it out, but left it here because of my understanding of the Wikipedia principle of not summarily reverting without explanation. Since I wondered at various times about his possible relaitonship with Ludwig Marcuse, i.e. another German scholar of his era, the non-relation statement seems relevant. I don't think the comparison with an American Marcuse of an earlier generation is an important part of any short biography of Herbert Marcuse. Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Organization
"Early History and Education" includes information up to subjects death at age 81 or so. I will remove the heading unless other have different suggestions. I also would appreciate elaboration of Marcuse's important ideas. user:Edivorce — Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Free Love
Why is there no mention of his early theories of free love? In his later years he never mentioned them but they were still his theories at one point or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.127.207 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Second last paragraph
I deleted the last sentence ("What this usually amounts to is intolerance of any criticism of critical theory or groups protected under critical theory as well as "any ideas coming from the right.") in the second last paragraph. That sentence is not of the sort I would expect to find in a tertiary reference, it is quite clearly an opinion and a strongly POV one at that. If you disagree with me please discuss it here and we can together work out how to express it in a manner that is not biased. BTW - I'll state my perspective and say that I'm a member of the socialist left of the Australian ALP, however I'm not a Marxist (even though I've read more Marx than almost all Trots). Alans1977 18:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Post modernism, etc.
Does anyone feel like this article could be improved by a section on how his ideas (along with Derrida and others) led to ideas about liberation from tradition. Alans1977 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing the introduction
Another user (Mtevfrog) "undid" my adjustment to the introduction i.e., rather than introducing Marcuse as a German philosopher, it would make more sense to refer to his ideas i.e., a Marxist philosopher otherwise, if its about cultural heritage it would be better to call him both German and Jewish to be more accurate and to share the credit. If no arguments against this, I will "undo" the change sometime at a later date. Gmotamedi (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic Dimension entry
I've created an entry for Marcuse's final work, The Aesthetic Dimension. Please edit and retool as you see fit - this is my first Wikipedia article regarding Critical Theory. Colinclarksmith (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

repressive tolerance
The statement that Marcuse believed that tolerance was repressive because it tolerates repression is inaccurate. Marcuse criticizes tolerance as itself a means of repression. I will transcribe the following two quotations from Cuff et al. Perspectives in Sociology, for convenience:

"Marcuse argued, this tolerance is one of the forms of repression, rather than being the opposite of repression; it is one of the ways in which the system inhibits the possibility of change in itself by effectively drawing the teeth of any challenges to it." (Cuff 193)

also:

"Thus to tolerate diversity is not to tolerate real revolutionary determination; instead, it is defused, and dissent is regularised into merely another and inconsequential activity within the system. Dissenting ideas are turned into commodities, into commercialised products of the system; they can be harmlessly (and profitably) disseminated as books, television programmes and films.  Critical, even revolutionary, thought is reduced to a kind of leisure activity." (Cuff 193)

So, repressive tolerance is a strategy of dominance where the dominant person/party/class/etc. listens non-judgmentally, or even joins into the the dissent - but at the same time maintaining the resolve that the dissent is harmless precisely because it will will not have any effect on the dominant institutions. Intolerance, on the other hand, puts the dominant individual or ideology into a position of accountability and acknowledges the possibility that dissent or critique has a possibility of achieving something.

The classic everyday example would be parents or teachers who avoid reacting to behavior they consider bad, instead tolerating it. They fail to see the child's rebelliousness as containing any substantial arguments, so they let her/him express the rebellious behavior with the assumption that the child will eventually give up and accept the parental perspective. This is a more effectively repressive form of governance because the governed are given the impression they are gaining ground and thereby pacified. Of course, once they become aware that they are being tricked with tolerance, they become more angry at the dominant ideology, but the question is where else this might lead other than more tolerance or repressive violence. The question is whether the dominant party can legitimately engage in negotiations with dissent and seek compromises and reforms that incorporate the dissenting ideology into the ruling paradigm. Or does dominance inevitably result in fetishization of status quo and repressive tolerance of dissent? I can't believe the former is not possible because that would mean that true democracy is impossible - and there are simply too many examples of democracy working to abandon it in cynicism.

Regardless of whether you agree with the cynicism of Marcuse's ideas of repressive tolerance, at least get them right in the wiki article. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
Shouldn't there be a section detailing Marcuse's use of Orwellian Newspeak? His idea of tolerance was the acceptance of ideas from the Left, while refusing ideas from the Right. He also felt if his ideas were illogical, the problem wasn't with his ideas, but with logic itself. GreatGatsby 20:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually there isn't yet much at all about most of his main ideas or summaries of his most important works -- not only the Critique of Tolerance but of Eros and Civilization and One-Dimensional Man -- compared, for example, to the article about Adorno. So it would be nice to get clear and NPOV contributions about most of his main ideas.  The article is good as it is, but could benefit from more on his works. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Marcuse's critical perspective on tolerance can be applied to analyze either a tactical approach of either left or right to the other. If a left-dominant regime tolerates rightist ideas in order to defuse them, that is repressive tolerance.  A good example of this is when KKK proponents were allowed to speak on the Jerry Springer Show.  The point, in my analysis then which you may disagree with, was to allow people to express KKK ideologies to the point of making themselves appear foolish publicly.  Then, the dominant left, center, and/or moderate right viewers amuse themselves with the show and derive pleasure from distinguishing themselves from the taboo counter-culture.  This produces a sense of superiority, civility, etc. by scoffing at the people on stage and the ensuing bickering and fighting with audience members.

Important: please note that I am not endorsing KKK ideas in any way, nor am I rallying for sympathy for supporters. On the contrary, I am strongly anti-racist. I am just providing an example of how repressive tolerance has been used as a tactic against the (extreme) right as well as other politics and idea, right/left/etc. The basic strategy is to cage the dog and let it bark itself out of energy. There may be taunting or leading designed to further bring out the behavior/ideology targeted for repression. A bull-fight might be another good example, where the bull is encouraged to attack and even taunted with the red flag - only each time it expresses its point of view (if you can call it that), the matador casually steps out of the line of attack and gives the bull a stab, slowly wearing him out with his own persistence.

I don't know if I'm expressing it clearly enough, but I find this tactic of dominant power extremely offensive and inhumane. Even when used on an ideology as inhumane as the KKK, I find that it brings the critic to the same level. How can people gleefully consume KKK members making fools of themselves without noticing their own arrogance and superioristic attitude? White supremacy is a nasty thing, but white-supremacy over white-supremacists is the same thing, isn't it? Or maybe it is more so since it denies its own supremacy, whereas the KKK at least acknowledges it explicitly (when people dare to show their faces at least).

Wasn't planning to pursue so much in this post, but hopefully the example of repressive tolerance of a rightist movement is helpful. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Feeling superior to members of the KKK is not white supremacy over white supremacists. Anyone with half a brain may rightly feel superior to members of the KKK, whether they are white, black, brown, yellow, green, purple, etc. Further I don't know if I'd take such a situation as an example of repressive tolerance. Clearly in your situation, the KKK are displayed as examples of a mentality that is to be laughed at, encouragement I would say for others to shy away from such a mentality. The KKK certainly do hold views that are repressive. However, allowing members of the KKK to demonstrate that such views are backwards and retarded, is not the same as tolerating support for repression. We are not tolerating their views, if we were tolerating them, we would not hold them up for ridicule.

Example's of repressive tolerance include: Alans1977 (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Giving religious organizations any sort of exemption from anti-discrimination laws, because of their religious beliefs
 * Not holding the repressive aspects of other societies up to the same level of critique as we do to repressive aspects of our own society

Not a relative...
'Marcuse was unrelated to the émigré literary scholar Ludwig Marcuse,' Does this really need to be in the article? Should it also mention every other person with the surname 'Marcuse' to whom Herbert Marcuse was not related? Skoojal (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the passage about Ludwig Marcuse soon for the reason given above (irrelevance) unless somebody objects. Skoojal (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Hmarcuse (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I (Herbert's grandson and webmaster of marcuse.org/herbert) was often asked whether Herbert was related to Ludwig, so I included that information on that website, which was taken as the basis of this one. It was something people wanted to find out, but I suppose they'll find it there and don't need to have it in an encyclopedia article.Hmarcuse (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Did Marcuse advocate violence? -- no.
I'm going to remove the line that Herbert advocated violence--or rather change it to indicate that this was a misconception spread by his detractors and the media, which he tried very hard to combat. There is an excellent excerpt from a late 1960s interview in the film Herbert's Hippopotamus where the reporter is trying to get Herbert to say that he advocates violence, and Herbert points that out and explains that he would only advocate violence of defense, not violence of aggression (see minute 42:40 at http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/soundvideo/herbhippo.htm#ret4). In fact, the main strategy Herbert advocated was the "great refusal"--non-violent civil disobedience. He also condemned destruction of universities, which he deemed enclaves of free expression.Hmarcuse (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcuse and Capitalism correction
The last sentence of this section makes a claim with no reference in Marcuse's work, or outside it, that really supports it. Even if commodities are taken to be extensions of the human body and mind, opening up new possibilities, this is still a power over us, not one we control. Maybe this could be changed to reflect that commodities in consumer culture are objects that have power over peoples' subjectivities, thus alienating them in a different way than Marx imagined (commodity fetishism, which is objective). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.245.227 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Kołakowski
Using Kołakowski to describe Marcuse is very POV, at any rate when his view is presented first and not in some kind of appendix. Kołakowski is a source that is very hostile towards pretty much any form of Marxism and leftism. He may be mentioned in the end as another opinion, but beginning with him is like, say, beginning the article on G.W.Bush with a quote from Gore Vidal.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not clear in this article: key concept that Marcuse borrowed
I'm not very familiar with Marcuse's work, though recently I read something that made reference to it. So I came here to Wikipedia to learn something about his thinking.

In the section on "Marcuse and capitalism," I found this sentence:
 * Marx believed that capitalism was exploiting humans; that the objects produced by laborers became alienated and thus ultimately dehumanized them to functional objects.

All right, but what does it mean that "[Marx believed] that the objects produced by laborers became alienated"? This sentence is not self-explanatory. Something is missing, explanation-wise. How does an object become alienated? Alienated from what, or from whom? And (if this is relevant), how does an object "become alienated" from a labourer? the labourer who makes it? or one who wants to buy it?

If this idea is a key to understanding some starting point of Marcuse's thinking, then the understanding of the reader of this article on Marcuse will be mired down in the sentence I'm quoting.

A brief clarification would be good: can anyone clarify this idea without inserting an essay on Marx?Joel Russ (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Laborers identify with the objects they produce, and so become alienated from other people and the natural world. I will update the article. HairyWombat 06:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Absence
The article is lacking the very valuable (and with the most impact today in our lives) information that Marcuse is the author of the theory to doctrinate criminals in prisons to communism rather than proletariat. And convice society that when a person dies in a homicide, the capitalism is the guilted and the bandit is "social transformation agent" the thus violence will be only over if society accept socialism and revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.85.172 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2013
"After emigrating from Germany in 1933, in 1934, Marcuse immigrated to the United States, where he became a citizen in 1940."

Suggest: After moving from Frankfurt to Geneva in 1933, Marcuse immigrated to the United States in 1934, where he became a citizen in 1940.

Carib2 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I think the first half is better the way it is, but I changed the second half the way you suggested. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013
"In 1943 he transferred to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency. and worked for the Research and Analysis Branch."

Suggest: In 1943, he transferred to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency, where he worked in the Research and Analysis branch.

Carib2 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2013
With his academic career blocked by the rise of the Third Reich, in 1933 Marcuse joined the Institute for Social Research based in Frankfurt. Marcuse joined the Institut Für Sozialforschung (institute for Social Research), popularly known as the Frankfurt School, in 1932.

Suggest: With his academic career blocked by the rise of the Third Reich, Marcuse joined the Institut Für Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research), popularly known as the Frankfurt School, in 1932.

Carib2 (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: How do you know 1932 is correct, rather than 1933? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know which is correct, 1932 or 1933. But it can't be both.  I just picked one of them, hoping that someone more knowledgeable would correct it in the future! Carib2 (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: Although this page is semi-protected, your user rights currently allow you to edit it yourself. With your most recent edit, you have become autoconfirmed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Marcuse's relationship with the Institute for Social Research is unclear
The Early Life section says both "in 1933 Marcuse joined the Institute for Social Research" and "Marcuse joined the Institut Für Sozialforschung (institute for Social Research), popularly known as the Frankfurt School, in 1932." So was it 1932 or 1933?

It also says that he left almost immediately for exile and didn't return after the war, yet talks about important work he did while he was there.

So how long was he really at the Institute? Does the phrase "while a member of the Institute" imply that he did significant work in association with the Institute while not physically there?

The section is a mess and could use a cleanup by someone familiar with the subject.

Pzriddle (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a sentence with coherent syntax which appears to have no coherent meaning:

"Marcuse did not return to Germany after the war, and when he visited Frankfurt in 1956, the young Jürgen Habermas was surprised to discover that he was a key member of the Institute.[8]"

When WHO "visited Frankfurt in 1956"? Marcuse or Habermas. What is this contributor trying to say?

Please fix this. ---Dagme (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let Us Not Cover Up his Acknowledged Role as Father of the New Left
The source is also mentioned in the New Left Wikipedia article too. Another source is also needed to prove Marcuse disliked and disavowed the term "Father of the New Left."JoetheMoe25 (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Nope, you are a poor liar. I wonder how you are also able to see my IP address too. Maybe I should call the police.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh please--a cover-up? You simply have very poor sources, as User:FreeKnowledgeCreator indicated earlier. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in the edit history, idiot. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * JoetheMoe25, you are reverted again because you can't seem to find a decent source, decently published, rather than something pulled of a website of questionable reliability. This is an encyclopedia: we cite reliable sources. As for that IP stuff, you have edited without properly logging in on many occasions. That is foolish for many reasons, one of which is privacy, and another is, well, you may well be accused of not logging in in order to prolong an edit war and avoid scrutiny. If that IP address is yours, of course, which a CU can confirm quite easily. You can avoid all that, of course, by a. not edit warring and b. logging in properly. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In that case I think I'll call the police unless you compromise. I suggest you also maintain good faith and not use the word idiot as well. I reverted because the source is decent and even used in the New Left page. Quit covering up facts2601:447:4101:41F9:C086:2ACA:D876:5C8D (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude. What are you going to call the police for? You just pasted your IP address all over this page., do you think a block for edit warring will suffice, or do you think it's necessary to check? Drmies (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is my username. Who is Berean Hunter?JoetheMoe25 (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert Marcuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020150208/http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/ to http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Behold the Handmaid of God
It is odd to see images of Simone Martini’s painting of the Roman Catholic Annunciation on Marcuse’s NYC apartment wall. There are several possible explanations.173.72.115.153 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)De Mikeal Tibbetts

Response by Harold Marcuse
Herbert's theories from the 1950s do not explicitly advocate "free love" (nor, by the way, did he coin the phrase 'make love, not war', contrary to the claims on many conservative websites). However, his ideas do point in that direction, and he certainly endorsed that motto of the 1960s antiwar movement. In his 1955 book Eros and Civilization, a melding of the ideas of Freud and Marx, Herbert argues that advanced capitalism is based in part on the sublimation and repression of sexual drives. You can find lots more about this on the wiki Eros and Civilization page. (Click on the link under "major works" on the main Herbert Marcuse page.)


 * Schopenhauer, in 1844, claimed that love of money can be a sublimation of sexuality. This is found in The World as Will and Representation, Volume 2, Chapter 49, as follows: "...if money, the abstract representative of all the objects of desire, for which the sense is dead, then takes their place, and excites the same vehement passions that were formerly awakened more excusably by the objects of actual pleasure, and thus, with deadened senses, an inanimate but indestructible object is desired with equally indestructible eagerness...then the will has been sublimated [sublimirt] and etherealized in avarice...." This was written before the writings of Freud and Marx.173.72.115.153 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)De Mikeal Tibbetts