A recent article by Matt Taibbi outlines the theories held by Herbert Marcuse: Patron saint of new-left intellectuals. Taibbi’s analysis showcases the style and substance of Marcuse to be that of a distinguished man with many credentials but with ideas akin to a first-year undergrad with the express experience of his parent’s basement. I really enjoyed the article by Taibbi as he stopped playing games with this ideology and came at it full force pulling no punches to reveal the idea and ethos around it. However, I was interested in the topic surrounding his essay Repressive Tolerance to which Taibbi (2021) writes “a towering monument to the possibilities of nonsense in the academic profession” (para, 17). I have decided to go deeper into this particular essay to gain further understanding in relation to Taibbi’s words.
A quick background on Herbert Marcuse, born in 1898 in Berlin, Germany who was later associated with Goethe University based at the institute for Social Research – or its more common name – The Frankfurt School. One of the most ironic pieces of information was that he worked for the U.S. Government for most of the 1940’s where he was highly critical of Soviet Communism especially with his book Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis and his work Office of Strategic Services (preceded the CIA). The irony is that he became the figure surrounding radical neo-Marxist thinking akin to the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. An important piece of information is that he was the doctoral advisor to Angela Davis, the famed radical who spurned the ideology of individuals like Kimberle Crenshaw, Ibram Kendi, and Robin DiAngelo. The lineage between Marcuse and the current ideologues at the forefront of critical theory, critical social justice, critical race theory, and neo-Marxism are prevalent and provide a window into what these individuals saw in Marcuse.
Key themes surrounding the essay focus on the negative concepts of tolerance especially in the socio-political realm. In addition, the suggestion that tolerance in the form of freedom and natural rights are “a precondition for the restoration of their original oppositional function, provided that the effort to transcend their (often self-imposed) limitations is intensified” (Marcuse, 1965, p. 2). After a droning of the American political system and the referencing of humans as – simply put – barbarians incapable of harnessing freedom; he enters this diatribe about art overcoming historical understanding, coming back to focus on tolerance. Certain ideas rose to the forefront of the essay such as:
- Tolerance is oppression of the masses.
- Tolerance is held by the intellectuals to foster and be used as a subversion tactic.
- Tolerance must be constrained towards a repressive nature benefiting the marginalized.
The message that Marcuse attempts to unpack is that tolerance in a free and liberal society – although free and liberal – allows for the oppression of other voices in the arena of competition. Furthermore, the framers of tolerance are the intellectuals who use subversion tactics to trick the masses into oppression, yet he notes the “duty of the intellectual [referencing himself]” (Marcuse, 1965, p.1) to recall the history of these oppressive super-structures towards a utopia. Ultimately, he concludes that the status quo of tolerance in a free and democratic society holds down minorities with continual oppression.
This was a very thick and dense read but is an example of fundamental attribution error – as in – one may read it and evoke one of two emotions: under-emphasize or over-emphasize. In this case, you may seem to over-emphasize with the flowery language, deconstruction, and a sense of prose that is powerfully grandiose with deep and conceptual phrases like “[l]iberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance” (Marcuse, 1965, p. 11). The under-emphasis would be to look at this as incoherent, unpalatable, and unactionable with a serious shortcoming of praxis. Both can be true, and it can be your conception depending on the response. Some see this overemphasis as a ‘calling’ to them to undertake these ideas and attempt to conceptualize them more, the underemphasis are the individuals who get worn down like a 12th round boxer and capitulate to the ideas. Both are dangerous outcomes with ideas especially when there is a third option. Confidence in yourself and your own knowledge will see these concepts for what they are: shallow, pretentious, and contradictory.
First, tolerance in a liberal society through the form of republicanism allows the majority to happen, but also allows laws protect the minority from the tyranny of majority. Second, Marcuse might think he and other intellectuals can hold the secret of tolerance as some sort of God, but if he is to revert the notion of the common man back to the beast and the barbarian, evolutionary biology would conclude that he is of beast and barbarian like the rest of us. Third, tolerance must be constrained to the marginalized, thus, if you hold tolerance who becomes the marginalized? This is the fundamental error with Marxist thinking of the proletariat smashing the bourgeoises, and once the dust has settled and the proletariat wins, you now become the bourgeoises and the oppressive power cycle starts over. Much like tolerance is not a good idea, unless it is held by a select few, notably intellectuals.
The unfortunate outcome is that we see this today where certain individuals use the rhetoric of the marginalized and oppressed to use it as weapon to marginalize and oppress. Another way of looking at it is to say tolerance is a subversion tactic used by intellectuals, while the rhetoric itself allows the author (an intellectual) to deconstruct tolerance in a way that benefits the authors ideals, that’s what Orwell would call newspeak or doublethink, put together you can call it doublespeak. We actually see these instances happen within institutions in our society today which is troubling because most people have regular lives and cannot be concerned with the harebrained ideals promoted in this work. The final takeaway is to be confident in your own knowledge, and to overcome the ‘oh you must be an intellectual to understand this’ and respond with ‘no this is shallow, pretentious, and contradictory’.
References
Marcuse, H. (1965). Repressive tolerance. In R. P. Wolff, B. Moore, & H. Marcuse (Eds.). A critique of pure tolerance, (pp. 1-16). https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEMarcuseToleranceTable.pdf
Taibbi, M. (2021, February 16). Marcuse-Anon: Cult of the pseudo-intellectual. TK News. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/marcuse-anon-cult-of-the-pseudo-intellectual-1d3
carsonbabich.com 