Janko Stojanow
ON
THE ABSOLUTE RATIONAL WILL
(SUBLATION
OF 
’S
PHILOSOPHY)
G.W.F. Hegel
Marcuse’s
critique of modern “classless” society
Being
closely associated with the worldwide known Frankfurt School of left-wing thinkers, who succeeded in creating A Critical Theory
of Society as a Hegelian version of Marxism, much of Marcuse's theorising
was in the spirit of the School. It was a great merit of Marcusean critical theory to have
articulated the deficiencies of modern “one-dimensional” capitalist
society, which eliminates individuality, dissent and opposition. There is no
doubt that the
rulers of each society tend to make it one-dimensional so as to force the
subjects to obey and conform to existing ethical values, thought and
behaviour. The life of the supposedly classless man in modern capitalist "classless
society", which totally dominates the individual, deserves to be looked into
critically. On the other hand, there is every reason to examine thoroughly the apparent fact that the working class is no
longer revolutionary as Marcuse does in his contribution to the Critical Theory
of Society of the Frankfurt School.
Marcuse
decisively criticises the limitations of bourgeois democracy based on private
property as well as social and economic inequality: “The union of growing
productivity and growing destruction; the brinkmanship of annihilation; the
surrender of thought, hope, and fear to the decisions of the powers that be;
the preservation of misery in the face of unprecedented wealth constitute the
most impartial indictment…. its sweeping rationality, which propels
efficiency and growth, is itself irrational.”1 For him, the
atomisation and alienation of the working class, the legislation of the
capitalist state created to defend private
property and the function of the repressive state apparatus result in the violent
restriction of any practical application of democratic rights and freedoms in
the industrialised democracies.
Contrary
to Douglass Kellner, the noted scholar on Herbert Marcuse, who claims in the
introduction to the second edition that “One–Dimensional Man is
perhaps Marcuse’s most sustained attempt to present and develop the
categories of the dialectical philosophy developed by Hegel and Marx,”2
I will argue that Marcuse’s analysis fails to be dialectical enough; the
very method of his critical theory is not truly dialectical, for it is not
Hegelian - i.e. speculative, - enough. In fact, his philosophical project is
more Marxian than Hegelian. It is fully justifiable to say that possessing an
insufficient amount of Hegel’s speculative dialectics, the standpoint of
Marcuse’s critique can
only succeed in producing the
apparent utopian character of his One-Dimensional Man.
I
will try to examine thoroughly the reasons why Marcuse’s highly
philosophical critical theory failed to inspire the “one-dimensional man,”
whom Marcuse so brilliantly describes. I will also argue that - contrary to
Marcuse’s thesis, - it is political rationality that has the necessity to
develop its immanent rational volition to the
point of including advanced technological rationality.
Marcuse
fearlessly criticises the official version of a classless capitalist society. Without
question, he is profoundly interested in moving beyond capitalism. He strongly
opposes the ideologists of modern capitalist society, who keep claiming that -
contrary to what Marx thought, - the classless society is not to be achieved by
liquidating the bourgeoisie by a revolutionary process, but by elevating the
proletariat into the bourgeoisie by a process of reform. According to them the
bourgeois values of individual liberty, limited government, and market
economics, pushed to their logical conclusions, are able to produce and, in
fact, have produced a classless society. Bearing in mind that Marxist
socialism inspired large numbers of people in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, for it provided a vision of a classless society without a
privileged class of people, the ideologists of Big Capital perspective on a
classless society have acquired the idea and presented the latter as a society
in which there is neither bourgeoisie nor a proletariat, a society which
succeeded in pulling the proletariat up into the ranks of the bourgeoisie.
Undoubtedly, their approach to a modern classless society is congenial to the
newly formed middle class mentality. Their zealous devotion forces them to
define the category of class (as relatively bounded social groups defined by
common economic positions) so narrowly and simplistically as well as
one-dimensionally that Marcuse cannot help but criticise this advanced
one-dimensional classless society. For him, the latter as well as the
one-dimensional man living in it are void of real dialectical development.
Possibly
influenced by this hostile environment, one of the most profound mistakes
Marcuse makes is that he fails to examine the development of the real class
relationships, which have always been an inspiration for fundamental social
changes as well as an indispensable tool of analysis. As for the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat, Marcuse claims: “In the capitalist society, they are
still the basic classes. However, the capitalist society has altered the
structure and function of these two classes in such a way that they no longer
appear to be agents of historical transformation.”3 Marcuse is
appalled by the fact that in the apparent absence of organised masses of
people capable of manifesting their historical mission, his critical theory of
society is doomed to remain at a high level of abstraction. He omits to
realise that, in fact, not only does a new truly dialectical development
evolves, but the latter is also above his critical theory. The task of each
dialectically critical theory is to present this genuine development in its
truth.
Marcuse
himself overtly admits the fact that his “critical theory is left without
the rationale for transcending this society.”4 This is a great
moment. Not only the advanced industrial society is to be changed but also
there is a tremendous need the very categories of Marcusean critical theory to
be changed for they “were developed during a period in which the need for
refusal and subversion was embodied in the action of effective social
forces.”5 His work is a brave attempt to recapture the critical
meaning of a wide variety of categories such as “individual,” “class,”
“private,” as well as “family.” He challenges directly the claims of
prominent scholars that classes do not exist in America in any meaningful way;
the point is, however, that he failed to revitalise the long-standing
intellectual tradition of class analysis.
Yet,
according to A. Buick One-Dimensional Man “has been described as
"the most subversive book published in the United States this
century". This is an exaggeration since a large part of it, including the
title, must be incomprehensible to those unacquainted with the theories of
Hegel. Hegel held that everything was in the process of developing into
something else. A thing therefore had two dimensions; what it was at any given
time (its positive side) and what it could become (its negative side).
One-dimensional thought only sees what is and not what can and ought to be.
Applied to social and political thinking it produces a man who sees no
alternative to the present system.”6 True, Marcuse is known to
be a Marxist, whose rhetoric is definitely Hegelian. Paradoxically enough,
however, there is not much of Hegel in Marcuse’s “One dimensional man,”
or at least he is not Hegelian enough. On the contrary, not only is it difficult not to see the
tremendous simplification of Hegel’s unrivalled philosophy in the quotation
above, but in Marcuse’s book as well. The immanent contradictions of
this supposedly one-dimensional – or classless, - society are not properly
examined. The task of each objective and impartial investigation is to reveal
these internal contradictions for they are the totally real and utterly
powerful critique of the so-called “classless society.” The fact is that
in Hegel’s truly speculative dialectics the categories of pure critical and
“dialectical” thinking are not and cannot be genuinely true.
For
Hegel the highest moment of thinking is the speculative, which always sublates
its own dialectical moments in-and-through itself. Like Marx, Marcuse cannot apply successfully
and develop Hegel’s dialectical method, for neither Marx nor Marcuse is able
to show the dialectical as sublated by the speculative. True, the task of
dialectical thinking is to “negate existing states of affairs that oppress
individuals and restrict human freedom and well-being. Dialectical thought
thus posits the existence of another realm of ideas, images, and imagination
that serves as a potential guide for a social transformation that would
realize the unrealised potentialities for a better life.”7 But
the idea that pure critical thinking can postulate norms of criticism and
carry them into practise is totally un-Hegelian.
Marcuse’s
claim that “Hegel instituted a method of rational critique that utilized the
“power of critical thinking” to criticise irrational forms of social
life”8 is a far cry from being true. On the contrary, for Hegel what
is actual is rational and what is rational is actual.
As a matter of fact, critical thinking which is not capable of being
speculative at the same time is absolutely powerless. Developing only the
moment of negation without a genuine application of the speculative moment of
the Absolute can unavoidably lead to a social critical theory which - to
certain degree, - expresses the truth, but is incapable of grasping its
actuality. His One-Dimensional Man apparently tends to be a utopian
theory; we could not reasonably expect the practical-political development of
modern technologically advanced society to be immediate.
In
his critical social theory Marcuse aims at developing negative thinking, which
negates the existing technological society from a higher standpoint. Yet, his
critical philosophy failed to influence the working class of today. And
for good reasons, for his one-dimensional man is a too abstract moment of the
non-dialectical thinking of the Understanding; Marcuse is not able to achieve
the higher standpoint owing to which he can provide significantly more than a
mere political ideal for liberation of modern society from oppression and
domination. One-dimensional Man, his magnus opus, omits to provide the
norms for social criticism as well as the way for actual liberation through a
positive change for contemporary society, which he aims at but cannot attain
to. Consequently, the theoretical approach of his critical theory has failed
to live up to its own expectations.
Outlining
the main features of his One-Dimensional Man in his prospectus for the
book, Marcuse writes: “The books deals with certain basic tendencies in
contemporary industrial society which seem to indicate a new phase of
civilisation. These tendencies have engendered a mode of thought and behaviour
which undermines the very foundations of the traditional culture. The chief
characteristic of this new mode of thought and behaviour is the repression of
all values, aspirations, and ideas which cannot be defined in terms of the
operations and attitudes validated by the prevailing forms of rationality. The
consequence is the weakening and even the disappearance of all genuinely
radical critique.”9 Marcuse has every reason to say that modern
technological rationality has produced a system of totalitarian social control
as well as domination. His social theory was deeply influenced by Marxism, but
so was the very capitalism he was criticising. Yet, Marcuse omitted to realise
that owing to the fights of working class totally inspired by Marxian
socialism, classical capitalism had developed tremendously. Being profoundly
influenced by moderate Marxist social-democratic parties, this modernised
version of consumer capitalism is now able to deliver the goods for it has
developed to welfare capitalism. This is the determinate standpoint of actual
Reason of our time. Neither the contradictions of capitalism are so explosive
now as they used to be when Marx was alive nor the proletariat – a huge part
of which now belong to the middle class, - is the absolute negation of
capitalism any more. Tomorrow’s genuine forces of progressive social
change – organised and powerful enough to achieve their historical mission,
- are still to evolve. Marcuse’s highly philosophical studies in the
ideology of advanced industrial society, however, failed to define clearly
this historical mission.
Nonetheless,
Marcuse's intellectual courage and integrity, his tremendous potential as well
as talent for philosophising make him a thinker of great magnitude. He is
bound to be an important and influential thinker in the times to come. To be
sure, he does not seem to care much about political correctness. Without
question, intellectual freedom is the absolutely indispensable condition for
the adherents of any critical social theory. Marcuse’s view is that the
adherents of his critical theory should keep alive the idea of an alternative
society even if this is generally considered to be utopian. The point,
however, is to develop a speculative theory of contemporary society which is
both rational and actual, i.e. a theory which is not utopian at all. For only
speculative reason is the absolute creative principle which actually develops
the real society and refutes every abstract critical theory as long as the
latter is a mere product of critical reason, which is neither dialectical nor
speculative.
Beyond
all question, Marcuse’s diagnosis is right all along. The newly evolved
working class of today - enthusiastically presented by the ideologists of
modern capitalism as a middle class, - live in a totally administered society,
which Marcuse depicts as totalitarian. Due to the fact that this advanced
society with its technological rationality totally overpowers and controls its
subjects, it is a society without genuine opposition. Without question, achieving the most important and vital of its goals – relative
welfare, - the working (“middle”) class is reconciled with its
yesterday’s oppressors. It has to pay the price for sharing some of the
benefits of the new technological actuality and sacrifice Freedom. The
one-dimensional man surrenders his freedom and individuality for welfare based
on advanced technology. Marcuse has every reason to claim that Freedom is on
the retreat in the industrialised world. Universal Freedom of private property
and its powerful administrative-bureaucratic apparatus dominates and organises
the world of industrialised democracies.
As
Douglass Kellner puts it “Marcuse claims that metaphysics is superseded by
technology, in that the previous metaphysical concept of subjectivity, which
postulates an active subject confronting a controllable world of objects, is
replaced by a one-dimensional technical world where “pure instrumentality”
and “efficacy” of arranging means and ends within a pre-established
universe is the “common principle of thought and action.”10
Being
only a moment of the
creative principle of the Absolute Rational Will, neither could Marcuse’s critical
reason provide the necessary inspiration for his project of
radical social change nor was it capable of developing the individual’s liberation and society’s
advancem
According
to Douglass Kellner Marcuse’s “One-dimensional man and one-dimensional
society are the results of a long historical erosion of individuality which he
criticised over several decades. One-dimensional Man can thus be
interpreted as an extended protest against the decline of individuality in
advanced industrial society.”11 There is no doubt that Marcuse’s
critique is so brilliant as well as courageous that no matter how incomplete
it is, it is still as true as it used to be in his time. He is deeply in
favour of a society in which freedom and well-being are genuine.
The
fact remains, however, that not Marcusean critical reason but advanced modern
Rational Voluntarism alone is fully capable of sublating and
incorporating technology and its pragmatism into itself. As for the
one-dimensional character of modern society, we have to have trust in the
Absolute Rational Will; such is the power of the latter that the state of
advanced society as described by Marcuse cannot continue to exist forever. It
has in itself its strongest contradictions, which will change it and force to
progress economically, socially and politically.
All
in all, Markuse’s concept of the Great Refusal of forms of modern domination
is neither clearly defined nor mobilising enough to lead to a new era of
social change. Yet Marcuse's way of philosophising is definitely in line with
what Practical Philosophy is about. Not only does he deserve to be read
carefully, but he also deserves to be criticised for what he failed to
achieve. Marcuse was convinced that the immanent development of Western
philosophy necessitated the transition to the critical theory of society. Like
Marx, he did not want to interpret the world only but to change it. The task
of our time is essentially not different – we have to understand the need
for historical change, to express its categories clearly and teach the new
existing agencies capable of achieving a qualitative change of the advanced
industrial society in the foreseeable future.
NOTES
1.
H. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, with an introduction by Douglas
Kellner, 2002, Routledge Classics, p. xliv
2.
Ibid., p. xiv
3.
Ibid., p. xliii
4.
Ibid., p. vliv
5.
Ibid., p. vliv
6.
A, Buick, http://www.worldsocialism.org/marcuse.htm
7.
H. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, with an introduction by Douglas
Kellner, 2002, Routledge Classics, p. xvii
8.
Ibid., p.xvi
9.
Ibid., p. xii
10.
Ibid., p. xxvi
11.
Ibid., p. xxviii
Janko Stojanow
Go for it!
PHILOSOPHY
OF THE ABSOLUTE RATIONAL WILL (SUBLATION
OF Hegel
links
Join
*the Philosophy of Absolute Rational Will* Discussion Group
Art
’S
PHILOSOPHY)
G.W.F. Hegel