One-Dimensional Man : Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society

Rating:
Summary: best book ever.
Review: i had to read this book in colege and now i no that this is the best book ever wrote end the bestt book i ever red. im not a comunist thouh.

Rating:
Summary: A Prophet of the New Left
Review: Leftist thinking underwent a dramatic change during the Sixties. After fifteen years of unprecedented prosperity, the class issues that had bedeviled the old left seemed moot. The working class, instead of being immiserated and ripe for revolution, was now contendedly (seemingly) partaking in the general boom and as far from revolution as one could imagine. Already by 1950 C. Wright Mills had coined the term "liberal-labor establishment" to disparage the conservative turn in the labor movement (specifically, the CIO). This seeming repudiation of Marx's predictions fostered a great deal of thinking by members of the Frankfurt School, which included Marcuse, about how marxism should be revised and where it went wrong. One Dimensional Man is Marcuse's brilliant attempt to answer this question.

Why is Marcuse so upset about prosperity? Following in the foot steps of Marx, Marcuse is not simply worried about economic exploitation. His basic concern is liberation--a liberation he sees receeding ever further into the distance as modern industrial society (both capitalist and communist) buys off almost all potential opponents through increased abundance. He views modern society as a treadmill where workers are kept enslaved to their jobs by the desire to purchase newer and ever more products produced by their labor. Rather than seeking for liberation, workers willingly put up with the indignities of working for their capitalist (and socialist) masters in hopes of greater material, as oppossed to spritual abundance.

Yet this society is, at its core, irrational, according Marcuse. Written at during the height of the Cold War, Marcuse views the prepartions for World War III as especially telling of the insanity of the current system.

In the first four chapters Marcuse shows how modern society is able to contain and absorb its contradictions. Marcuse is in despair that the "machine" seems to be inescapeable. With the demise of working class opposition, the "machine" seems capable of carrying on indefinitely; unless, of course, it anihilates itself in a nuclear holocaust. Readers may find chapter 3 especially interesting for its Freudian analysis of modern society.

The next four chapters are devoted to philosophy. Marcuse seeks to show how modern scientific thinking (which made modern society possible) is part of a "historical project" aimed at "domination." As opposed to this "positive thinking" (i.e., postivist) Marcuse proposes "negative thinking," i.e. dialectical thinking which includes the contradictions and negations of the thesis in the form of the antithesis. These chapters can be some rough sledding at points, but Marcuse explicates his ideas well enough that most readers will be able grasp his basic argument.

Finally, after a chapter discussing why liberation is still possible, and how it might be achieved, he wraps up in a conclusion that would seem to be a manifesto for the New Left. Having given up on the working class, Marcuse invests his hopes for revolution in people of color, whether in the U.S. or in the third world.

For understanding why the left took the turn it did during the sixties this book, along with the Port Huron Statement, is a necessity. Before plunging into One Dimensioal Man, however, the reader might do well to first read Reisman's _Lonely Crowd_ and Whyte's _Organization Man_. These books form an essential backdrop to Marcuse's thinking. (He mentions his debt to these works in his preface.)

Rating:
Summary: A Prophet of the New Left
Review: Leftist thinking underwent a dramatic change during the Sixties. After fifteen years of unprecedented prosperity, the class issues that had bedeviled the old left seemed moot. The working class, instead of being immiserated and ripe for revolution, was now contendedly (seemingly) partaking in the general boom and as far from revolution as one could imagine. Already by 1950 C. Wright Mills had coined the term "liberal-labor establishment" to disparage the conservative turn in the labor movement (specifically, the CIO). This seeming repudiation of Marx's predictions fostered a great deal of thinking by members of the Frankfurt School, which included Marcuse, about how marxism should be revised and where it went wrong. One Dimensional Man is Marcuse's brilliant attempt to answer this question.

Why is Marcuse so upset about prosperity? Following in the foot steps of Marx, Marcuse is not simply worried about economic exploitation. His basic concern is liberation--a liberation he sees receeding ever further into the distance as modern industrial society (both capitalist and communist) buys off almost all potential opponents through increased abundance. He views modern society as a treadmill where workers are kept enslaved to their jobs by the desire to purchase newer and ever more products produced by their labor. Rather than seeking for liberation, workers willingly put up with the indignities of working for their capitalist (and socialist) masters in hopes of greater material, as oppossed to spritual abundance.

Yet this society is, at its core, irrational, according Marcuse. Written at during the height of the Cold War, Marcuse views the prepartions for World War III as especially telling of the insanity of the current system.

In the first four chapters Marcuse shows how modern society is able to contain and absorb its contradictions. Marcuse is in despair that the "machine" seems to be inescapeable. With the demise of working class opposition, the "machine" seems capable of carrying on indefinitely; unless, of course, it anihilates itself in a nuclear holocaust. Readers may find chapter 3 especially interesting for its Freudian analysis of modern society.

The next four chapters are devoted to philosophy. Marcuse seeks to show how modern scientific thinking (which made modern society possible) is part of a "historical project" aimed at "domination." As opposed to this "positive thinking" (i.e., postivist) Marcuse proposes "negative thinking," i.e. dialectical thinking which includes the contradictions and negations of the thesis in the form of the antithesis. These chapters can be some rough sledding at points, but Marcuse explicates his ideas well enough that most readers will be able grasp his basic argument.

Finally, after a chapter discussing why liberation is still possible, and how it might be achieved, he wraps up in a conclusion that would seem to be a manifesto for the New Left. Having given up on the working class, Marcuse invests his hopes for revolution in people of color, whether in the U.S. or in the third world.

For understanding why the left took the turn it did during the sixties this book, along with the Port Huron Statement, is a necessity. Before plunging into One Dimensioal Man, however, the reader might do well to first read Reisman's _Lonely Crowd_ and Whyte's _Organization Man_. These books form an essential backdrop to Marcuse's thinking. (He mentions his debt to these works in his preface.)

Rating:
Summary: Is our society one-dimensional?
Review: Marcuse aims with this work to construct a critique of society and seeks to tease out the dialectical relations between two hypotheses to show that our society is one-dimensional. On the one hand, that `society is capable of containing qualitative change' (p. xlvii). On the other, the idea that `forces and tendencies exist which may break which may break this containment and explode the society' (ibid.). To achieve his critique Marcuse uses two criteria, namely, that human life is worth living (in the Kantian sense) and that there exist opportunities for betterment and to improve human life. In consequence discusses the one-dimensional society, next the one-dimensional thought followed by the chances of alternatives.

As far as one-dimensional society is concerned, Marcuse aims at showing that plural social praxis tends to be eroded. If the ultimate aim of freedom of enterprise has been the exertion of autonomy and competition in the sense of constantly proving one self, Marcuse aims at pushing this logic to the point where such need is no longer required. Technology does have a crucial role in this respect as it can release `individual energy into a yet uncharted realm of freedom beyond necessity' (p. 2).

But to reach such a point (if at all) one needs to become aware of the current societal realities. In particular, not the disappearance of class, but rather, their amalgamation in that they all share a drive to preserving the establishment. Marcuse explains this phenomenon by means of the concept of "introjection" which denotes the tendency of replicating societal forms of control at the individual level.

The prevailing societal forms of control are technological in the sense of an instrumentality of reason that qualifies social production in a vicious cycle that encloses dual identities in a pure form of servitude. This is on grounds that the `progress of technological rationality is liquidating the oppositional and transcending elements of culture ... as they succumb to the process of desublimation' (p. 56). For Marcuse technological reality limits the scope of sublimation as well as the need for it by upsetting the channeling of socially unacceptable impulses towards (aesthetic) activities regarded as more socially acceptable. Under such conditions one is preconditioned for the spontaneous acceptance of whatever is offered thereby contributing to the acceptance of established general repression. Ultimately, as he puts it, `an unfree society makes for a happy consciousness which facilitates acceptance of the misdeeds of this society. It is the token of declining autonomy and comprehension' (p76).

Language and its manipulation under the guise of unified functionality seems to have exacerbated the phenomenon because it is `irreconcilably anti-critical ... anti-dialectical ... and anti-historical' (pp. 97-98), considering that critical thought and language are essentially judgmental.

Concerning one-dimensional thought, Marcuse attempts to show that plural thinking tends to be undermined. In particular, he brings forth the contrast between formal and dialectical logic, the former being based on the unified functionality of language that fixes meaning in its attempt to construct quantitatively objective descriptions of the world. In arguing that `the objective world, left equipped only with quantifiable qualities, comes to be more and more dependent in its objectivity on the subject' (p. 148), Marcuse argues in favor of a dialectical logic since it is able to undo the abstractions of formal logic.

What is at stake here is `preserving and protecting the right, the need to think and speak in terms other than those of common usage' (p. 178), which is, for Marcuse, the main task of philosophy - but not of analytic philosophy.

Finally, Marcuse offers some indication on how the alternatives mentioned in the previous two sections need to be considered with an overall focus on plurality, in particular linguistic and aesthetic in a technological rationale pushed to its extreme.

Overall a powerful book that has lost none of its appeal and relevance to contemporary societal issues, whether political, economic, cultural or technological, despite the fact that some aspects of the discussion have evolved since. One-dimensionality is here with us!


Rating:
Summary: The Paucity of Ideology
Review: Marcuse has long been a favorite of intellectuals and for good reason - his ideas brought about the rise of the Left on college campuses and made acceptable the practice of allowing only acceptable views a hearing. Dissenting opinions are to be silenced. His idea of societal/cultural Marxism seems slightly nutty and a tad romantic - one of those theories worked out by tenured professors over a second glass of brandy at the local pub. But Marcuse is anything but flippant - he is dead serious.

He is also a contradiction. At once didactic (he's German)and eccentric, he also (like Freud) played the part of the gifted bourgeoise trapped amid a swill of nonentities. He has never refrained from advocating a dictatorship of the elite who would guide/help/force the stupid masses. For some reason, he thought undisciplined, nomadic students would lead that vanguard. And in a sense they did - by entering politics, academia or the media. His disciples are classic "NPR" types - highly educated, white, well-heeled and immersed in political ideology.

One cannot underestimate his influence. His theories led to several current movements (quote unquote): Deconstructionism, the Marxist interpretation of language, Political art, identity politics, group (gender/ethnic) over individual rights, the new Primitivism (radical environmentalism/animal rights) and last but not least, violence as an acceptable political response.

Despite the shrill denunciation of Western culture he chose to remain behind enemy lines, never venturing to Marxist lands for study where critical works of this kind would not be permitted. This is the paradox: Critical writers would not be allowed in a Marcusian society since "wrong" ideas are not permitted. Like Chomsky or Vidal or even the clownish Michael Moore, he walked among the very peoples he denounced. The thesis of the book - typically Marxist - is the plight of the worker brought up to date by Marcuse. We learn of the horrors of capitalism and the hope for a brighter future. But would his society of mind-numbing politicalization make individuals richer in spirit and more fulfilled?

One aspect of Marcuse I've always admired is his brutal honesty. Unlike other theorists he openly advocates violence when it is necessary to achieve a political goal. He embraced the students who rioted in the 60's but unlike other letists he was never fooled by the common worker - they would never willingy accept his societal vision. He says (repeatedly) "They must be taught". This work is very 1950sh, especially the parts with the outdated Freudian allusions. It reads like a religious tract that quotes ancient writings as the best answer for current problems. One must remember that this was written when Marxism was still taken seriously in some quarters. Its effects remain with us today.

Rating:
Summary: An Insightful Critique
Review: Marcuse offers a brilliant critique of advanced industrial society that fuses dialectical thought, Freudian theory, Marxist perspectives, and even a bit of existentialism here and there. It provides a comprehensive critique of our technocratic social order, as it has become, that is reminiscient of the works of later French poststructuralists, like Deleuze and Foucault. Ultimately, Marcuse founders on the contradiction between short-term and long-term interests, explicitly critiquing the Welfare State while implicitly, it could be argued, advocating it. However, "One-Dimensional Man" is the best basis for critique yet, with much of the insight that later emerged in the French intellectual fast track, but without the ambiguity of poststructuralist alternatives. Marcuse is both entertaining and brilliant, a must-read for specialists, and an eye-opening classic for the general educated public.

Rating:
Summary: Still relevant today
Review: Marcuse was very perceptive about the nature of our technological society.Some of his ideas still have relevance today. He saw how the state and power elites were using technology to control people's lives. This has created a new form of totalitarianism. People are massively controlled and manipulated by technology.Our freedom today is to simply to walk about in our cages and choose the wallpaper. Marcuse points out that inner freedom or private space has been invaded and whittled down by technology reality. The media is especially at fault, and things are much worse than when he wrote in 1964. False needs are so pervasive that most people are not aware of the situation. Marcuse also shows how ideas and thinking processes are being used to limit our perceptions. Marcuse is heavy going, but he has many challenging ideas. My criticism of Marcuse is that he was a materialist himself, therefore could not offer a viable way out. He did not see that the real problem was a moral collapse, and this is destroying our materialist system from the inside.If Marcuse had a spiritual outlook, he would have found the answers in a new set of non-material values.

Rating:
Summary: Valuable historical document
Review: Marcuse's most celebrated book has long been surrounded with misconceptions. It is not social science, but a prophetic text which needs to be seen in the context of late 60's radicalism and the emergence of what Guy Debord called the society of the spectacle. Ostensibly a "Marxist", Marcuse was, perhaps, the last left Hegelian, who departs from Marx not just in particular prognoses but basic epistemological tenets. Marcuse's immense popularity on campus led to much resentment, hence the numerous false stories circulating about him by contemporaries ....

Rating:
Summary: Bad social science compounded by worse ethics
Review: Marcuse's most celebrated book is best seen as an expedient to cope with the demonstrable failure of Marxist prophecies for capitalist society. Whereas Marx expected the immiseration of the proletariat and workers' emergence as a revolutionary class, the liberal market societies of the west have produced steadily rising living standards and diminution of class consciousness. Marcuse responded with a frankly elitist contempt for those who, in his view failed in their revolutionary duty, and instead pinned his hopes on those most privileged members of society, 'alienated' youth and students. In one of the most ridiculous notions ever coined in the social sciences, he maintains in this book that students are the victims of 'repressive tolerance': they enjoy all the advantages of an affluent and free society, but this is all a sham, apparently.

As social science, this is pure hokum, because the notion is unfalsifiable. However affluent and liberal a society becomes, it is still more 'repressive'. The ultimate absurdity of this argument is illustrated in a story told by the philosopher Sidney Hook, who at one lecture by Marcuse challenged him to say whether he would rather black Americans were denied the franchise rather than use their votes for choices Marcuse considered against their interests. Marcuse indeed said exactly that: a nice example of a consistent elitist and totalitarian.

Rating:
Summary: The Platonic Ideal of Social Criticism
Review: This book is the most damning indictment of advanced capitalism ever written. Its author, Herbert Marcuse, was a walking encyclopedia, and probably the most accessible, directly political member of the infamous Frankfurt School. Unlike his brilliant (if personally troubled) colleague Theodor Adorno, Marcuse thankfully does not waste time criticizing things like jazz music and Betty Boop (although he does admit to not seeing any emancipatory possibilities in rock and roll).

Moreover, when the Frankfurt school members once toured St. Louis, Marcuse had nothing but scorn for the famous "Arch" of St. Louis, while his younger colleague Jurgen Habermas wanted to go all the way to the top (this obviously reflects different generational sensibilities among German intellectuals). Our good friend Marcuse was also known to wear flannels, smoke cigars, and drink good scotch, all of which he did in a 1960s visit to that hotbed of radical dissent (and my alma mater) Antioch College.

While his masterpiece, "One-Dimensional man", is a brilliant synthesis of Marx and Freud that leaves no doubt that we live in a seriously deficient society, it also does not leave much hope for the possibility of any one person or group effecting constructive change. In fact, the only really hopeful note in "One-Dimensional Man" is the fact that the book, like all of Marcuse's other books, is dedicated to his wife Inge, "again and again", which shows that true love can flourish even among the deadening cynicism inevitably brought about by full exposure to the omnipresent conformity of one-dimensional society.