this question didnt get any play on the smaller “Social Sciences” hall, so i thought id post it in the main hall and see if anyone out there has any thoughts. i realize these concepts are quite academic, but i personally feel, especially in light of current world events, that the sociological and political issues present in Eros and Civilization are very relevant, and require us to develop new responses to the new threats to our freedom (mental as well as physical):
[b]for the more widely-read members here, those who are familiar with the works of herbert marcuse, i would like to pose some questions regarding his groundbreaking work Eros and Civilization. marcuse theorized that societies are defined in part by their historical dialectics; that the opposing and contradictory elements from within society tend to determine its expression throughout history, as well as what direction society will move in the future. for marcuse, this dialectic has resulted in the increasing suppression and redirection of libidinal energy, which provides the basis for men’s adherence to the reality principle, which, in the abscence of such repressive domination, he would fail to follow.
specifically, marcuse defines civilization as such as the growth of expression of the father-son conflict, whereby the son attempts to usurp power from the father, only to find that, once successful, the freedom he has earned does not provide the motive power nor the means for his survival, which has always been granted by the father-leader himself. the result is that domination seems to be an inherent need by man; to be dominated and therefore “freed” from the strict adherence to the pleasure principle, which ultimately leads to death, as man now needs to subsume his basic urges in order to “work” and secure protection from the father-figure (society). but as marcuse notes, “…these personal father-images have gradually disappeared behind the institutions. With the rationalization of the productive apparatus, with the multiplication of functions, all domination assumes the form of administration.” (EaC, 98). this administration, according to marcuse, tends to nullify revolutionary tendencies from within society, as membership alone grants survival for the individual. this presents a new dynamic than past sociological forms of domination, because modern society, acting via a pervasive static component of administration, and constant repression (and primarily due to the internalization of repressive forces), man no longer is capable of forming the multi-dimensional views of the future which are required for social change. in otherwords, the one-dimensional attributes of modern language, as established by collective-necessity and reinforced by the status quo, tend to negate our ability to view alternative structures to those which we have become used to.
the question i pose is this: is marcuse correct that social change away from current repressive structures is impossible? to be exact, he does not claim that change is always impossible, but will remain impossible unless man learns to transcend the current superficiality, politicizing and operative-tendencies of modern language. more to the point, as these trends seem at this point irreversable, as the self-sustaining relation exists between low levels of intellectual functioning and one-dimensionality (and that this relation allows repression to grow on its own with little or no outside assistance), how is humanity to alter the reality of the further technological rationalization of his life and functions, up until the point that he loses all autonomy and free action at all? and also, how is this process affected by Eros, and if the influence of the ego is truly becoming increasingly weaker in the face of an almost overwhelmingly-socialized superego, what specific steps should we, as members of advanced industrial civilization, take in order to secure the possibility of negative (negating the current reality) change in the future?[/b]