[FRA:] Marcuse and heidegger

[simon smith]

Chapters five and six of 'One Dimensional Man' explicitly use 
terminology and ideas derived from Heidegger (e.g. p126, Abacus 
edition). Marcuse tries explicitly to show the identity of the 
principles of modern science and method with the technology of 
capitalist society. He's prepared to identify modern industrialism with 
capitalism. In reference to the computer (here we are!) he denies that 
the technology is neutral - "when technics becomes the universal form of 
material production, it circumscribes an entire culture; it projects a 
historical totality - a world" (p127).

Marcuse never gave up his phenomenological groundings, and his debt to 
Heidegger (who was of course his teacher in the late twenties), which is 
obvious from the above - I don't know enough about Heidegger to say any 
more than that.
In note 4 on page 113 he distances himself from Heidegger - he says that 
these matters are not "of existential concern" - "the history of mankind 
has given definite answers to the 'question of being' and has given them 
in very concrete terms, which have proved their efficacy. The 
technological universe is one of them'".
Marcuse relies on the "progress of scientific rationality" to provide 
the very means to its end (p181). The mechanisation of labour would 
"open the possibility of an essentially new human reality." (p181), 
which must be achieved politically and collectively. Despite one or two 
caveats, Marcuse seem optimistic that that technics will provide the 
means for the 'power of man' to conquer nature to the extent that man's 
ferocity against nature will reduce (p188). Marcuse conflates "poverty, 
disease and cancerous growth", the "reduction and removal" of which is 
"liberation of life". An optimistic man!
The task of 'man' is to overcome the oppose the continued artificial 
production of "false needs" (his quotes - he's obviously aware of the 
impossibility of defining such a concept) and change the qualitative 
nature of life. (p189).
Again he (implicitly) distances himself from Heidegger - "liberation... 
does not mean return to healthy and robust poverty, moral cleanliness 
and simplicity "(p190).

Marcuse lapses into a utopian romanticism and mysticism - the notion of 
"false needs" seems to be a leftover from Heidegger which is indefinable 
and unhistorical, as is 'man'. His utopian notions seem based in 
Heidegger, and I don't think Marcuse tears himself clear from his grasp. 
His presumptive utopian ideas again testify to his debt to Heidegger, 
despite his attempts at dissociation and reversal. His language becomes 
prescriptive and definitive.

Adorno's rejection of phenomenology and foundationalism is the crucial 
difference between himself and Marcuse, and allows him to avoid the 
crucial weaknesses in Marcuse's thought.

I've only just re-acquainted myself with "One Dimensional Man" so I 
apologise for any first-year undergraduate errors in the above.

-- 
Simon Smith




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date: 16/02/2006