In 1965 Herbert Marcuse published an article entitled "Repressive Tolerance" in the collection A Critique of Pure Tolerance. The critique of modern society he presents in this paper will not be new to anyone familiar with his work or with the work of others from the first generation of the so-called Frankfurt School: the administered society,
the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for and training of special forces, the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandizing, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations...
In fact, this essay is a very succinct summary of many of the views of the Frankfurt School and makes for a relatively good introduction to some key themes (although it would be a mistake to see the Frankfurt School as presenting a single coherent view).
However, what might be of interest in light of the recent episode on terrorism as well as the discussion of the Occupy Movement in the philosophy of race episode is what Marcuse has to say about the use of violence and the the limits of toleration in our 'administered society':
To discuss tolerance in such a society means to reexamine the issue of violence and the traditional distinction between violent and non-violent action. The discussion should not, from the beginning, be clouded by ideologies which serve the perpetuation of violence. Even in the advanced centers of civilization, violence actually prevails: it is practiced by the police, in the prisons and mental institutions, in the fight against racial minorities; it is carried, by the defenders of metropolitan freedom, into the backward countries.
In other words, Marcuse is claiming that our administered society is shot through with violence - violence that is used to maintain the status quo. If we going to discuss tolerance, we must realize that 'pure tolerance' or tolerance without limits is toleration which goes against the telos of tolerance: truth and autonomy. We should not, in Marcuse's opinion, tolerate such 'regressive movements'. He goes on to put into question the distinction between violence and non-violence:
This violence indeed breeds violence. But to refrain from violence in the face of vastly superior violence is one thing, to renounce a priori violence against violence, on ethical or psychological grounds (because it may antagonize sympathizers) is another. Non-violence is normally not only preached to but exacted from the weak--it is a necessity rather than a virtue, and normally it does not seriously harm the case of the strong. (Is the case of India an exception? There, passive resistance was carried through on a massive scale, which disrupted, or threatened to disrupt, the economic life of the country. Quantity turns into quality: on such a scale, passive resistance is no longer passive - it ceases to be non-violent. The same holds true for the General Strike.)
Two things stand out in Marcuse's questioning of the dualism between violence and non-violence. First, he seems to be saying that non-violence is forced choice of the weak. It is only through violence that non-violence becomes a viable option. This then makes sense of why we should not tolerate the 'regressive movements' because they are advocates for the violent forces that run throughout society. Second, Marcuse wants to claim that non-violence on a massive scale turns into violence.
Robespierre's distinction between the terror of liberty and the terror of despotism, and his moral glorification of the former belongs to the most convincingly condemned aberrations, even if the white terror was more bloody than the red terror. The comparative evaluation in terms of the number of victims is the quantifying approach which reveals the man-made horror throughout history that made violence a necessity. In terms of historical function, there is a difference between revolutionary and reactionary violence, between violence practiced by the oppressed and by the oppressors. In terms of ethics, both forms of violence are inhuman and evil--but since when is history made in accordance with ethical standards? To start applying them at the point where the oppressed rebel against the oppressors, the have-nots against the haves is serving the cause of actual violence by weakening the protest against it
Here we see a new dualism which arises out of the false dualism between violence and non-violence: a dualism between revolutionary violence and reactionary violence (which seems to follow a similar, but importantly different, line of thought that is found in an early essay by Walter Benjamin). On the one hand, reactionary violence, the violence of the oppressors, is used to preserve the status quo and the world as it now stands. On the other hand, revolutionary violence, the violence of the oppressed, is a violence which is necessary, though still inhuman and evil, to eliminate the violence of the oppressor and open up the possibility of a humane society - a society where true tolerance can flourish.
It is unclear to me how we should take Marcuse's argument. Should we take it as societal psychotherapy where, as Adorno says, "Only the exaggerations are true"? In that case the essay maybe seen as a way of waking people up to a false understanding of tolerance and neutrality (think of the debates on MSNBC and Fox News) but not a call to violence - perhaps a call to a more authentically democratic world? Or is Marcuse is advocating for revolutionary violence and if so a violence against who? Further, it is unclear to me if revolutionary violence would be terrorism - surely Al-Qaeda is reactionary but what about Animal Liberation Front? - or if it falls under some other category.
I, for one, have more sympathy with Adorno when he said to a German newspaper during the student protests,
I postulated a theoretical model for thought. How could I suspect that people want to realize it with Molotov cocktails?
For more on Marcuse, check out this documentary:
--Adam Arnold
Hello,
I’m a long time reader, first time commenter. Love the site, podcast etc.
“surely Al-Qaeda is reactionary”
Isn’t that just western myopia? An airplane flying into the twin towers can be interpreted as being reactionary when one sees it on the street in downtown New York. But when one sees in the context of a potential Al-Qaedian individual in the perifery of the oppressed Middle-East, the act would be revolutionary. Sure, the purported religious aspects in Al-Qaeda’s actions can be interpreted as regressive, but how does that differ from committing atrocities while “serving your country” or just being a gun for hire? How is exceptionalistic nationalism and exploitive capitalism effectively different from religious zealotry? Isn’t that the point in Homeland? That and admiring Mandy Patinkins’ hirsuteness. Anyways, are these questions just leading to relativism and a neverending loop of alternating tolerance and intolerance depending on the view? Should the line of examination be drawn there, and no further?
Thanks for plugging Marcuse. I have totally forgotten or ignored his views on tolerance. As a Finn, or a just a European in general, it has been quite unsettlig to view the rise of extreme movements on the left and right while the center is crumbling in pleas for tolerance. Especially the rise of the anti-EU, anti-multi culture and anti-immigration True Finns Party has been harrowing. I kid you not, some newly elected MP’s played the martyr card for being criticized for their nazi-sympathetic views in their campaign material, got elected and then made references to Himmler in their victory speeches. “Today Finland, tomorrow Europe” and “I remove the safety from my Remmington, when someby mentions multiculture”. And still they are deemed fit to represent the people.
I need to slap some people with Marcuse.
Slap!
Kiitoksia oikein paljon!
Not thrilled about the rise of the extreme right in many countries in Europe. Need more voices like yours.
No, I don’t think saying Al-Queda is reactionary is western myopia. To quote from a completely different school of thought: “The objectivity of that […] surely depends not on its time, place, or culture of origin, but on whether it satisfies the criterion of reciprocity and belongs to the public reason…” (John Rawls, The Laws of Peoples, p. 121). That is to say, if Al-Queda’s aim is to instate sharia law and not to open up freedom and build a more humane society then it is reactionary. The purpose of tolerance, on this view, is freedom and a humane society and any force working against this – which it seems a STRICT interpretation of sharia law would be. That is not to say that there couldn’t be revolutionary violence done in the same way but someone from the middle east with their legitimate grievances that wouldn’t be reactionary. It may be incredibly hard to tell when something is reactionary or revolutionary – that was kind of my point about raising the question in regards to the Animal Liberation Front.
I think the raise of the right in Europe is entirely the point. What are we to do? Tolerate them as a legitimate voice or not? I honestly am torn on the issue. On the one hand, surely the repression might inflame issues and push these movements underground. On the other hand, treating them as a legitimate voice does not seem right either. I think this is a debate that needs to happen more. Here is a similar debate that took place recently here in England: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhsMG6Rf7Us
Thanks for the comment!
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/terrorism2c-trauma-and-its-aftermath/4549452
Recently listened to the speaker Kathy Kelly who spoke of the trauma induced by “Shock and Awe” in Afghanistan. http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s3341006.htm
Other than a brief intro to Marcue (On-Dimensional Man) I don’t hear him referenced much, nor Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, which I think is unfortunate.
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Theology-Power-James-Cone/dp/1570751579
Tammy,
Speaking of the Black Panthers, one of Marcuse’s most famous students, Angela Davis, had strong ties with them!
Angela Davis also has ties with activist Assata Shakur who is living in political asylum in Cuba. Shakur is the aunt of 2Pac whose parents were members of the BPP. No doubt, the women in his life had a strong influence on his music, poetry, and performance (picking-up on dmf’s link). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SUo2hzc0vG8
I find this topic fascinating because the thread of music and politics in the 50s and 60s, particularly jazz, takes us to South America with African roots. Anyway, I came to know of Davies because of her involvement–advocating–on behalf of Stanley William along with Bishop Tutu. I like Marcuse who would be familiar of aura shock used after WWII in Germany. American Jazz flooded the airwaves to help the German’s depression during the airlifts after the Berlin blockade.
http://arcade.stanford.edu/robin-dg-kelley-when-africa-was-%E2%80%9C-thing%E2%80%9D-modern-jazz-revolutionary-times
Surely the luck of the Irish is with me today. Thanks.
This is a good interview:http://www.afropop.org/wp/3822/music-culture-nation-an-interview-with-bryan-mccann/
what year was Mandela finally taken off of the USA’s terrorist list?
http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2013/01/howard-caygill-philosophy-and-the-black-panthers/
Hey guys,
Just listened to the podcast last night. Good stuff, definitely stirred up some hornets in my thinking. I’d like to see a follow up with Jonathan in the future. Obviously you were only able to touch the surface in one podcast. (Or maybe Jonathan would be willing to lead a Not School group for one month).
Some of his thinking seemed to reflect similar patterns to the theological (Augustinian) discussions around Just War theory. I would have like to see some of that brought in, as well as a discussion of groups like the Black Panthers, Hamas, etc.
Meaty stuff—appreciated the conversation.
John,
What do you think about the Black Panters and Hamas?
I think that I would have been interested in hearing how Mr. White viewed them in light of the conversation. I’ve heard both groups called everything from freedom fighters to terrorists.
Because neither group has ever had a tremendous impact on my life, I can’t say that I’ve been overly concerned about them beyond a purely historical interest.
Thanks for the interesting discussion! Your guest noted that Al-Queda has killed “more Muslims than Americans”. Just a reminder that the two are not mutually exclusive. Some (many, in fact) Muslims are American. Thanks again for a stimulating topic.