Proponent/Claimant
Jeffry Ocay
Abstract
Making sense of the Marcuse today seems at first a bit odd. This is due to three main resesons. First, the Hegelian-Marxist leaning of the first generation of critical theorist, with which Marcuse identifies himself, has been abandoned by the proponents of the second generation, especially by its most illustrious representative Jurgen Habermas. Second, the third generation, with Axel Honneth as its leading figure, lacks concrete embodiment of the issue of technological domination, one of the central concepts in Marcuse's critical theory. Honneth's model of critical theory also has the strong tendency to depoliticize the agents of social trnsformation, thus undermining the political dimensions of social movements peculiar to less developed countries like the Philippines. And third, the emergence of French Poststructuralism which became influential during the second half of the 20th century has rendered Marcuse's brand of critique untenable. Foucault, oen of the prominent figures in this intellectual movement, has analyzed the intricacies of power and domination in the lightr of archaeology and genealogy, a method of analysis and tactic of resistance quite different from Marcuse's. These conditions have lead to the obfuscation of the promising project of the emancipation Marcuse and other members of the first generation, let alone Adorno who became quite pessimistic about the project later in his life., have vigorously attempted to accomplish. No wonder, Marcuse's theory, especially on technological domination and emancipation, has declined significantly in the late 1970's. But owing to the site that technological domination continues to haunt humanity today and that no social critical theorist at present has offered a kind of critique of modern societies as convincing as that of Marcuse, this paper assumes the Herculean task of situating Marcuse's brand of critical theory today through an ambitous displacement of the critical theories of Habermas, Foucault, and Honneth. This is not to say that Habermas, Foucault and Honneth simply do not make sense. They are great theorist in their own right. However, they fail to engage the issue on technological domination, a big factor in the subjugation of the modern individual. They also defuse the explosive character of contemporary social movements necessary in the attainment of a more humane and just society. Honneth sees these social movements promising, yet he depoliticizes them by keeping individual demands away from the political sphere. Habermas politicizes them by bringing their voice to the public sphere, yet his theory of linguistic intersubjectivity weakens the critical position of the agents of emancipation by making them vulnerable to the domineering disposition of the elites in the "too procedural " ambivalent, if not too pessimistic, about the project of emancipation. His theory of power, through puissant to some extent, especially after his shift from discursive power reminiscent of the early works such as the Order of Things, Archaeology of Knowledge, and Madness and Civilization to discipinary power characteristic of the later works such as Discipline and Punish and the three in the struggle for emancipation. Foucault simply says stoically that that's how life is; in a sense, he reduces the "ought" into an "is". But Marcuse's theory can never be a panacea. He wrote from the early 1930's to the late 1970's, his theory seemed dated and its application to contemporary social realities may appear anachronistic. However, remnants of seminal work One- Dimensional Man remain very applicable today, especiallyin the struggle for emanciaption in the less developed countries, the wretched of the Earth, to use Frantz Fanon's terminology. Marcuse even doubts the possibility of emancipation in modern societies as the numbing effect of technological domination has rendered individuals impervious to the urgent call for "resistance". But towards the ned of One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse sees the light at the end ifthe tunnel. He realizes that resistance is still possible, especially in the so called Third World Countries where social and political movements are prevalent, and the emancipationis not a remote possibility. Marcuse views these movements as forces that stay outside the capitalist logic of production and consumption, movements that have the capacity to countervail domination. These are those forces, according to Marcuse, whose position revolutionary even if their consciousness is not. Here, Marcuse argues that resistance is possible only if individuals step outside the capitalis logic of production and consumption and that " the truth and the freedom of 'negative thinking', of the Great Refusal, have their ground and reason", in those movements that oppose the established repressive society. Foucault and Honneth and explain further the reasons for appropriating Marcuse's theory today. My aim here is not to brush aside the theories of Habermas, Foiucault, and Honneth. Instead, I will just argue that Marcuse's theory is much more approriate than that of Habermas, Foucault and Honneth in as much as technological domination continues to preponderate in the entire image of modern societies.
Name of Research Journal
PHAVISMINDA Journal
Volume and Issue No.
Volume 9, 2010: 33-45
Date/Year of Publication
2010
Citation
Ocay, J. V. (2010). Engaging the Titans: A Marcusean Critique of Habermas, Foucault, and Honneth. PHAVISMINDA Journal 9.
