Tweet
Yesterday I stumbled upon this mid-60s essay by Marcuse, and found it frighteningly contemporary.
I don’t know if I agree with Marcuse’s prescriptions on tolerance as written but I do feel he identifies a real and serious problem in American discourse. If anything, the problem he identifies is as significant today (or more so) as it was then.
Link to Herbert Marcus’s “Repressive Tolerance”
Diary edited by MyFDL Editor to stay within Fair Use guidelines. Please do not copy and paste complete copyrighted materials
Enjoy!
=====================================================
THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period–a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.
The author is fully aware that, at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate liberating tolerance into practice, but he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve historical possibilities which seem to have become utopian possibilities–that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which this society can be recognized as what it is and does.
Tolerance is an end in itself. The elimination of violence, and the reduction of suppression to the extent required for protecting man and animals from cruelty and aggression are preconditions for the creation of a humane society. Such a society does not yet exist; progress toward it is perhaps more than before arrested by violence and suppression on a global scale. As deterrents against nuclear war, as police action against subversion, as technical aid in the fight against imperialism and communism, as methods of pacification in neo-colonial massacres, violence and suppression are promulgated, practiced, and defended by democratic and authoritarian governments alike, and the people subjected to these governments are educated to sustain such practices as necessary for the preservation of the status quo. Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery.
…snip…
8 Comments
“Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.”
Barry Goldwater
Really there are at least two sides to Marcuse’s
concept of “repressive tolerance.”
For progressives, the uncontroversial side is
the truism that intolerable things are freely
tolerated by our government — no, not just
tolerated but _officially perpetrated_ by
our government! — and almost taken for granted
in “mainstream” public debate.
Marcuse made this point, and also people like
Noam Chomsky and Norman Solomon. The authorized
topic might be “Does drone warfare promote the
interests of the U.S.A., and how can it be made
more accurate and effective as an instrument of
our foreign policy?”
What Marcuse and Chomsky and others might point
out is the elephant in the room but not on the
agenda of “respectable” media debate and analysis:
“Isn’t it immoral, and also a war crime, to
assassinate people who either should be captured
and tried with due process, or else isolated
through diplomatic means — or just possibly,
in some situations, recognized as being closer
to peace and justice than the Pentagon?” If drone
warfare had been used by the CIA or Contras in
Nicaragua during the 1980′s, for example, the last
alternative might be quite relevant.
That’s repressive tolerance, or actually repressive
official policy — the “shock and awe” acceptable
if the bomber in question happens to have the benefit
of an air force.
The other side of Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance”
is a lot more controversial, and an area where people
of good will can very dramatically disagree.
This is the idea that to “tolerate” expressions of
militarism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. — in
the sense of not criminalizing these things — is
itself to condone these repressive ideas and
ideologies.
For example, Article 20 of the International
Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
requires that signators outlaw “propaganda for war”
and “advocacy of national, racial, or religious
hatred.”
Some nations which, unlike the U.S.A., have not
entered into indefensible and possibly invalid
reservations on ICCPR provisions protecting human
rights (e.g. by restricting and looking toward the
abolition of the death penalty), nevertheless have
declared the reservation that they cannot comply with
Article 20, because it would violate their commitments
to free speech.
In fairness, I would add that Amnesty International
has favored the provision of Article 20 against what
what is often summed up as “hate speech,” but there
is also a case for the alternative of governments
actively countering hate speech through education
and public leadership without outlawing it — except,
of course, when it moves to imminent incitement of
violence or the commission of other criminal acts.
The irony is that while real threats from private
hate speech and even outright violence, as with
neo-Nazism, are there, the most serious acts against
the letter and spirit of Article 20 are perpetrated
by governments themselves.
For example, imagine the Obama Administration and
Congress passing a law making it a crime to write
legal memos in defense of “targeted killings.”
Thanks for reviving examination of Marcuse’s work.
@2 Thanks for the good summary of the issues involved.
I studied Marcuse as an undergrad at UT in the Eighties.
One of my professors was very active then, and has gone on now, to be one of the leading translator/compiler and enthusiast for Herbert Marcuse.
Douglas Kellner, here’s a link, a perusal of his work may prove really enjoyable and expansive- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Kellner
He is presently producing interpreting a collected works- Sorry I’m tired description sucks, really worth looking at.
Hal
There are indeed inviting aspects to this essay, but I have some caveats. Take this extract, [my bolds]for example:
“Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior–thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives…”
As the essay concludes, we see who is going to do this undemocratic thing, and it isn’t ‘oi polloi, the people. No, it will be as John Stuart Mills proclaims, the political leadership of the intelligensia, wherein “individual mental superiority justifies reckoning one person’s opinion as equivalent to more than one.”
If that’s not “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others,” I don’t know what is. And that, dear people, is what got us where we are today.
I agree with your point and I had the same objection the first time I read it. But nowadays I’m more sympathetic to Marcuse’s position, or at least I strongly recognize the problem he identifies as legit.
But is what Marcuse is saying really so controversial? In the real world, can a republic allow propaganda and political activities that threaten the basic principles and liberties our Constitution supposedly protects?
Marcuse privileges and sincerely prefers democracy over totalitarianism, but recognized there are totalitarian aspects to liberal democracies. I think a man of his time might be somewhat torn, since while the MIC was taking over America, the MIC was also still the hope of the civilized world at the time. There was hope that Anglo-American empire would bring openness, diversity, and constitutionalism in its wake.
Some of the problems that Marcuse found intolerable at the time of this essay were no doubt 1) racial segregation and discrimination and 2) the Vietnam War….. in addition to the usual socialist critique of inequality, planned obsolescence, propaganda instead of discourse, and so on.
Think about civil rights legislation. Can you think of a better example of being intolerant and getting into people’s business? Here we are literally forcing vendors to serve the people whether they like it or not. We are literally busing children from one side of town to another in the name of racial equality.
But civil rights legislation is/was justified…..why? Ultimately it’s a transformational big government Jacobin program, designed to better the human race and achieve justice. The hard truth is that a stable republican/democratic government seems to occasionally require such action. The civil component of this struggle, and its enduring legacy, is the regime of ‘political correctness’ that helps define what is acceptable discourse. Like Rorty and Chomsky, Marcuse would have praise for some the practical achievements of this discourse….this Jacobin denial of tolerance to racists. At the same time, he would point out that while our mores on race have changed for the better, what we lost was an overall program for justice, and the solidarity between the oppressed classes needed to even imagine such a program. Instead we are subtlety integrating formerly oppressed elements into the system, even while the vast majority of oppressed minorities remain in underclass status.
When I think of ‘repressive tolerance’, I think of the breakdown in law and order, the irrationality of the MIC, the insane giveaways to the rich, the hopelessly co-opted media, infantile materialism, and the creeping police state. In our indifference to reality, we are ‘tolerant’ of injustice, as long as we stay fat and happy. Suppose democratic and political institutions have been completely hijacked by a corporate elite, and this corporate elite now defines the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
It begs the question of the need for justice advocates to theorize on exactly what the limits of acceptable discourse ought to be within a true constitutional republic. What is the educational program of a lasting republic? Part of that process is actually writing out draft constitutions and debating what is just and what is not.
Great food for thought Margo.
In my view there are a couple means of restraints on hate speech, either by individuals or the government.
1) effective constitutional restraints….actually putting restraints into the basic law…this is my favored solution. I like this option because laws can’t regulate thoughts…we can only regulate discourse that has identifiable negative practical effects–effects that threaten the Constitution itself.
2) Civic virtue.. (or political correctness). Whereby citizens themselves create a culture with values that are consistent with liberty and equality. This is not a purely voluntarist notion because it relies heavily on government interference, education, indoctrination, etc. Still, civic virtue requires an engaged populace that desires liberty….and the genius of the current oligarchy is how it finds ways to subtely co-opt or re-direct what is left of these impulses among the people.
In the end I would prefer to live in a society of perfect liberty where people are free to have racist or evil thoughts if they please…. I just want constraints on the ability of these actors to actualize such thoughts in ways that would threaten the liberty of other citizens.
To some excellent comments, I would only add a couple of thoughts, already either voiced or easily implied from the dialogue so far.
First, for many of the evils Marcuse describes and others, where governments are the perpetrators, the question becomes “Who will guard the guards?” His argument becomes a case, not for weakening free speech guarantees which permit hate speech or advocacy or very bad social policies, but a more effective regime of international law where human rights violations such as torture and the death penalty will not be tolerated. A global culture of civic virtue, with bodies like the International Criminal Court to underscore that virtue, might address Marcuse’s real insight that intolerable conduct is tolerated with impunity.
The second point is that discourse is distinct from conduct, including discriminatory conduct: civil rights laws are a good thing. Back in 1977, I was involved in San Francisco as a supporter of the ACLU in a case involving a Nazi bookstore. Our position was that this despicable place did have a right to be there, and should be countered by what you have well called, Green Liberal, civic virtue. However, when a report came in that the neo-Nazis running the store had refused admission to someone on the basis of race, the ACLU counsel immediately pointed out that they were still bound to observe civil rights laws!