5 ms·

I don't struggle with that concept much; literature and popular usage conditions us to certain meanings and associations of words - when I read Marcuse's book I

I don't struggle with that concept much; literature and popular usage conditions us to certain meanings and associations of words - when I read Marcuse's book I was actually almost as surprised as you seem to be, though Marcuse goes to pains not to trivialize the situation in those places we would describe as "totalitarian" by the kind of standard outlined in 1984 or by the example of Nazi Germany. Marcuse's point stems from the concept of totality, it's like looking at totalitarianism from the other way round - to me that was extremely refreshing. Similarly, I think we've made strides in thinking about what oppression means - what allows us to say that those non-"1st-world" places are oppressive but ours are not? Is it a matter of quantity or quality? The language here is not merely hyperbolic (though this feature does remarkably well in being provocative, which is the point of activism - Marcuse was a lifelong activist), it's substantive. When you appeal to the the "basis of Western society" in your comment, it reads more like normalization - how could such a thing be totalitarian, after all, it's the basis of Western society. That's actually the point I'm making, this basis conditions us to see only the worst examples as totalitarian/oppressive/"bad". The unspoken point seems to be that because it is the basis then we can't describe it as totalitarian. To me, that's not a logical conclusion. >Marcuse’s engagement with the issue of totalitarianism relies on the understanding of the transformation of reason and for him this transformation is exemplified by the emergence of positivism as the dominant means of making sense of the world. He argues that the totalitarian character of advanced industrial society and its concomitant ‘totalitarian rationality’ (Marcuse 2001 [1961]: 52, 55) have specific, potentially devastating, consequences for the members of that society. Most important here are what Marcuse conceptualizes as ‘matter-of-factness’, ‘psycho-logical neutrality’, and ‘repressive desublimation’.[0] >In advanced industrial societies, Marcuse says that the unit of production is totalitarian in without it determines the activities, attitudes and skills involved in social life. It defines and regulates also the aspirations and individual needs. Thus, the creation of false needs and control of these needs have corollary the disappearance of the border private / public life: only the consumer remains. It is this unique ontological condition that Marcuse called “undimensionnelle.” [0] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230250857_6 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230250857_6

chrisweekly 7y ago
> "In advanced industrial societies, Marcuse says that the unit of production is totalitarian in without it determines the activities, attitudes and skills involved in social life." Interesting thread, and worthwhile commentary, mostly improved by your post -- but this one sentence is kind of a trainwreck. By "without" did you mean "that"?
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  Yes, I missed that part, though I didn't write that whole quoted section, that's verbatim from an article I found in my bookmarks[0]. Good spot. [0] https://www.the-philosophy.com/marcuse-dimensional-man-analysis https://www.the-philosophy.com/marcuse-dimensional-man-analy...
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
We don't describe it as totalitarian or oppression because, by looking around the world, we've seen real oppression and totalitarianism, and they weren't just an economic system. I mean, look at the Uighurs in China. That's oppression. Note well: I am not saying that the economic system does not have its oppressive aspects. I am not saying that those aspects should not be improved. But I am saying that calling it totalitarian is cheapening the word "totalitarian". There's real things that the word applies to, and stretching it to apply to the economic system may help make your point, but it also hides the difference between the economic system and real totalitarianism. And there is a real, massive difference, which needs to not be swept under the rug of rhetoric. (Also, positivism is dead as the dominant means of making sense of the world.)
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >by looking around the world, we've seen real oppression and totalitarianism, and they weren't just an economic system This just dances around the core question, though: you say we've seen "real" totalitarianism, but by what do you judge that standard other than the uncritical ideological framework that's most common? Of course the treatment of the Uighurs is totalitarian, but that says little about what is and isn't totalitarian. Marcuse's claim isn't that "economic system" totalitarianism is the only kind, he's saying that the limiting of the concept in today's world is a result of technological and instrumental rationality, just as is the limiting of various other concepts - we conceive of totality, freedom, peace etc. within our rationalities, but Marcuse is saying that our very conception of what is rational changes in the advanced industrial age just as it changed in past ages more obviously (e.g the early Rennaisance moral opposition to a tradesman collecting profit other than by remuneration for his work of doing the transport). >But I am saying that calling it totalitarian is cheapening the word "totalitarian". Why couldn't it be the opposite - that the limited construction of the folk (generally uncritical) concept of totalitarianism is a restriction which works well to serve the interests of advanced industrial society? >And there is a real, massive difference, which needs to not be swept under the rug of rhetoric. Marcuse (nor any of his followers) argue that the forms of totalitarianism are qualitatively the same - in fact to do so would be self-defeating, because they want to draw a distinction between folk concepts of totalitarianism and critical concepts - and that is only possibly by accepting there is a difference between, for instance, the treatment of the Uighurs and economic totalitarianism. >Also, positivism is dead as the dominant means of making sense of the world Marcuse is not strictly referring to philosophical logical positivism, since even by the time he was writing this application of the concept was waning - he is reacting against the "positivist" sociology which was dominant at the time (and some scholars would argue still is). The dispute (the "Positivism Dispute") refers to the debate over the notion of "historicism" and in particular revolves around Karl Popper's criticisms of critical theory methodology.

chrisweekly 7y ago

> "In advanced industrial societies, Marcuse says that the unit of production is totalitarian in without it determines the activities, attitudes and skills involved in social life." Interesting thread, and worthwhile commentary, mostly improved by your post -- but this one sentence is kind of a trainwreck. By "without" did you mean "that"?

claudiawerner 7y ago
Yes, I missed that part, though I didn't write that whole quoted section, that's verbatim from an article I found in my bookmarks[0]. Good spot. [0] https://www.the-philosophy.com/marcuse-dimensional-man-analysis https://www.the-philosophy.com/marcuse-dimensional-man-analy...

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

We don't describe it as totalitarian or oppression because, by looking around the world, we've seen real oppression and totalitarianism, and they weren't just an economic system. I mean, look at the Uighurs in China. That's oppression. Note well: I am not saying that the economic system does not have its oppressive aspects. I am not saying that those aspects should not be improved. But I am saying that calling it totalitarian is cheapening the word "totalitarian". There's real things that the word applies to, and stretching it to apply to the economic system may help make your point, but it also hides the difference between the economic system and real totalitarianism. And there is a real, massive difference, which needs to not be swept under the rug of rhetoric. (Also, positivism is dead as the dominant means of making sense of the world.)

claudiawerner 7y ago
>by looking around the world, we've seen real oppression and totalitarianism, and they weren't just an economic system This just dances around the core question, though: you say we've seen "real" totalitarianism, but by what do you judge that standard other than the uncritical ideological framework that's most common? Of course the treatment of the Uighurs is totalitarian, but that says little about what is and isn't totalitarian. Marcuse's claim isn't that "economic system" totalitarianism is the only kind, he's saying that the limiting of the concept in today's world is a result of technological and instrumental rationality, just as is the limiting of various other concepts - we conceive of totality, freedom, peace etc. within our rationalities, but Marcuse is saying that our very conception of what is rational changes in the advanced industrial age just as it changed in past ages more obviously (e.g the early Rennaisance moral opposition to a tradesman collecting profit other than by remuneration for his work of doing the transport). >But I am saying that calling it totalitarian is cheapening the word "totalitarian". Why couldn't it be the opposite - that the limited construction of the folk (generally uncritical) concept of totalitarianism is a restriction which works well to serve the interests of advanced industrial society? >And there is a real, massive difference, which needs to not be swept under the rug of rhetoric. Marcuse (nor any of his followers) argue that the forms of totalitarianism are qualitatively the same - in fact to do so would be self-defeating, because they want to draw a distinction between folk concepts of totalitarianism and critical concepts - and that is only possibly by accepting there is a difference between, for instance, the treatment of the Uighurs and economic totalitarianism. >Also, positivism is dead as the dominant means of making sense of the world Marcuse is not strictly referring to philosophical logical positivism, since even by the time he was writing this application of the concept was waning - he is reacting against the "positivist" sociology which was dominant at the time (and some scholars would argue still is). The dispute (the "Positivism Dispute") refers to the debate over the notion of "historicism" and in particular revolves around Karl Popper's criticisms of critical theory methodology.