Customer Reviews

An Essay on Liberation

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A RESPONSE TO "Liberation from the Affluent Society"

My first impression of Herbert Marcuse' speech was the title. Upon reading it I thought why would anyone want to be liberated from an affluent society? It seemed rather odd to me that anyone would want to be freed from prosperity. However, upon further and deeper reading I soon learned exactly what the author meant by his title. Marcuse sees western society as an enslaving system which crushes its members into a life of bondage towards gain. Marcuse sees a need to fight against the society and to not be a normal citizen while society dictates so much in its members' lives. I believe that although Marcuse has a place in awakening the reader against the drudgery of life, overall Marcuse is a man who is too revolutionary to ever be content in the modern state of mass society.
I realized how much in common Marcuse had with the great Nineteenth Century Transcendentalist Henry Thoreau. Both men are radicals of their time. On that basis both unhesitatingly confronted the contemporary world, however shocking or bizarre their claims might seem to the conformist consensus of the establishment. Just as Thoreau challenged the government's moral decision in the Mexican War and his opposition to social conformity due the drudgery of life, Marcuse also pitted himself against the War in Vietnam and his opposition to mass society due to his position of seeing the great limitations of capitalism. Both men have basically the same struggle and that struggle is against the enslavement of society. However, they differ in the sense that Thoreau does not advocate a new social order just a method of passive resistance, whereas Marcuse in another essay advocates a Utopian alternative to the restraints of capitalism.
The central question of Marcuse's thought appears clearly in this short speech. The question being from what standpoint can society be judged now that it has succeeded in feeding its members? Recognizing the arbitrariness of mere moral outrage, Marx measured capitalism by reference to an immanent criterion, the unsatisfied needs of the population. But that approach collapses as soon as capitalism proves itself capable of delivering the goods. Then the fulfilled needs of the individuals legitimate the established system. However, Marcuse' radicalism means opposition, not just to the failures and deficiencies of that system, but to its very successes. Marcuse sees that this affluent society has ruined its members by the very nature of gain in capitalism. In his discussion of the divisions of the hippies he commends the sector that goes beyond the norm to radically oppose capitalism for its inability to bring true fulfilled in life.
It is viewed that the conflict between rationalism and irrationalism was a major division in the main thinkers of the modern era. However, Marcuse wants to go beyond that to redefine rationalism. He believes that collectively in society we have become irrational-rationales who define rationalism only as efficiency. The same efficiency was used by the Nazis to slaughter millions of Jews, but would we define that as rational? I think not. Marcuse' only real solution to this irrationality is education.
I believe overall men such as Marcuse and Thoreau have an important place because in a sense these men are like mirrors. They help the reader to step back from the chaos of life rethink our motives as to why we behave the way we do and whether or not this behavior is for our benefit.

Well, the book is about 30 years old but so far it is probably one of the best observations of the forces behind the scenes which are running the western culture. It does not offer any clear conclusion but it definitely raises the level of consciousness and what is also funnier it makes visible to many social mechanisms around in the present time. Definitely a good reading, written in a good normal language which is easy to understand... Enjoy.

Wow, wow, and wow!! The more I read Marcuse, the more I fall in love. His command of language is a rare gem combined with an unequalled intellect that deconstructs western consumerism and slavery of the human spirit. One of the most arresting moments of the book: his thoughts on obscenity. "Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the Establisment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to the expressions of its own morality but to those of another." He illustrates this by stating that obscenity is not a work of art or a woman's genitalia, but a 4 star general or a clergyman espousing the virtues of war. The rest of the book is a beautiful treatise on how we have the power to truly liberate ourselves from the tyranny of consumerism and false consciousness.

The best way to view this book would have to be by the times of which it was written in. Dated from 1969 it references the strikes in Paris (and France in general) that happened in the spring of 1968. It is written from a Marxist perspective.

The author does make some goods points. For example in that former luxuries are constantly being felt as if they are necessities. The top of what is offense in artwork is largely dictated by society. What he states as a "biological" function might have been better suited to invoke game theory.

Some of it is just odd. For example to refer to the majority of jobs being "stupid, inhuman and unnecessary" begs the question as to what would actually be a vocation with satisfaction according to his standards. In addition for some reason he describes the Dada movement but he does not name it outright, why this is so is unknown.He does at least recognize the that the use of violence simply just breeds a significant reaction against whatever group(s) use it. He also mentions that Marx states that work can never become "play". What about product testers? What about all those that work in entertainment? I also find it to be a bit ironic that he tries to state that the world would not tolerate a nuclear attack. The reason why is France "tested" nuclear weapons on Algeria for atmospheric testing while it was at war with it and via the Evian accords continued to test (granted underground) after Algerian independence. For the author to leave out such a glaring omission suggests that he did not research. Lastly is that in attacking industry he suggests that the organizations determine the lifespan of products and their usage. The internet changes all that because the market can speak back. Factoring out the internet surely he could have known about the Chevy Corvair and how production ultimately stopped.

The context might have been OK for his audience but it is nearly like reading a manual for a IBM Selectric typewriter today.

I expected another doctrinaire diatribe extolling the Marxist 'cause' and the coming Revolution. What I got sounded sane, balanced and what's more, intelligent. This reads very much like H. D. Thoreau, for the 20th century. Short book, plenty of analysis and insight into modern culture.