Proponent/Claimant
Jeffry Ocay
Abstract
Herbert Marcuse’s oeuvre is driven by the recurring theme of “emancipation”—that is, the attempt to liberate man from social exploitation and the projection of an alternative society, a socialist society which Marcuse describes as “free, happy, and non-repressive.”1 This suggests that Marcuse saw the existing society as pathological and therefore it needs to be diagnosed and remedied. His readings on Marx led him to his initial findings that the capitalist social order is the primordial cause of these pathologies, and, hence, it is the transformation of this social order that can bring emancipation to fruition. Inasmuch as this struggle for emancipation requires an active political agent, a critical theorist is, therefore, bound to seek for this agent. This is precisely what concerned Marcuse in his pre-World War II writings. His theory of historicity, which straddles Heidegger, Hegel, and Marx, is a search for that viable political agent who can be the hope of emancipation. Thus, Marcuse’s theory of historicity is premised, among other things, on the attempt to develop a theory of emancipation, and I call this “Marcuse’s first theory of emancipation.” Now, we may observe that after Marcuse devised a philosophical model of history that would secure the possibility of such agent of emancipation, his next task is to enunciate how this active political agent can actualize the project of liberation. But after World War II, Marcuse was faced with a huge difficulty: the integration of the proletariat into the status quo as can be seen in the two defining events in contemporary German history, i.e., the defeat of the socialists in the German Revolution of 1918-19 and the support the German proletarians had for Hitler. These events further convinced Marcuse (and the rest of the first generation of critical theorists like Benjamin, Horkheimer, and Adorno) that Marx’s proletariat is no longer the primary agent of emancipation. In his analysis, Marcuse realized that the integration of the proletariat into the status quo had something to do with the advancement of technology that contributed to the dawning of the advanced industrial society, a new type of society which reduces individuals into a state of “one-dimensionality.” This forced Marcuse to renew his theory of emancipation through a critique of the advanced industrial society. This paper attempts to address this issue. To have a full appreciation of Marcuse’s view on technology in the context of advanced industrial society, a preliminary discussion on the meaning of technology is provided here. Thus, I begin my discussion with a working definition of technology. In doing so, I refer to the work of Mario Bunge, which aptly sets the ground for any attempt to understand the dynamics and implications of technology, be they social, political, or economic. I present succinctly his view on technology. The next part deals with Marcuse’s notion of technology. It centers on how technology, which is originally conceived as liberating, has become a tool for domination in the advanced industrial society. Finally, this section closes with a discussion on the Great Refusal, a term which Marcuse believes to be the most appropriate action the individuals need to combat all forms of control and domination and to attain emancipation.
Name of Research Journal
KRITIKE: An Online Journal of Philosophy
Volume and Issue No.
Vol. 4 (1) (JUNE 2010) 54-78
Date/Year of Publication
2010
Citation
Ocay, J. V. (2010). Technology, technological domination, and the great refusal: Marcuse’s critique of the advanced industrial society. Kritike: an online journal of philosophy, 4(1), 54-78.
