Social Reality Of The Advanced Industrial Society example essay topic

Herbert Marcuse in One Dimensional Man speaks out against what he feels are the injustices and manipulations of advanced industrial societies. Technological advancement and bureaucracy impose an all encompassing social control over the people in promotion of the establishment's interests. What emerges is a society of contradiction that superficially appears to promote liberty, possibility, and comfort but actually asserts its control and domination. In the examination of his key concepts of "true" vs. "false" needs, the "Great Refusal", the unhappy consciousness, Eros vs. sexuality, and the "new historical Subject", it is apparent that Marcuse believes that these societies, through their manipulations, are limiting freedom of the individual and thus diminishing the potential for revolution and social change.

Liberation from the economics, politics, and public opinion (absence of individual thought) of industrialized and bureaucratic societies is impeded by the preconditioning of satisfactions and needs. A need becomes defined by its relevance and attractiveness to the dominant societal institution and it's specific agenda. Those which both promote and comply with this agenda are then imposed upon the individual in society's quest to repress him. These "false", repressive needs only serve to create misery, injustice, and hostility among the masses as they struggle to acquire that which is advertised and popular, the end result being "euphoria in unhappiness" (Pg 5).

While the actual satisfaction of "false" needs may be enjoyable for an indoctrinated individual, the pursuit of this satisfaction is one of toil, so discontent ensues. For Marcuse, these needs are frivolous and distracting from the injustice they perpetuate. He argues that the only needs that require universal satisfaction are the biological - food, shelter, clothing - since it is from their satisfaction that all others may be realized. Any other needs are subject to a standard of priority (priority going to those which will both optimally utilize resources and enrich individuals) to determine whether they are "true" or "false". Priority must be decided by the individual, but this cannot be accomplished until they are free from the manipulation of a dominant, stifling society to make their own decisions. When people are truly liberated, then their ideas will be their own and the needs they wish fulfilled "true".

Marcuse contends that a major player in the preconditioning of needs forced upon individuals is the media. The media has immense power in the process of repressing through the imposition of "false" needs; it serves as an instrument of indoctrination for the dominant institution by making clear the contrast of what is attainable and what is desired, assimilating man across class lines through the sale and ultimate adoption of these wants. Value is placed on their pursuit and ultimate achievement. In short, under the influence of the media, and thus advanced industrial society, people define themselves by their possessions and the successful satisfaction of coveted needs. I agree with this argument.

Popular culture, especially as it is portrayed through the media, becomes the end all be all of what is, or should be desired. All pursue the same goals which are packaged for imposition upon us. Possessing whatever it may be, one is envied. Lacking that, one envies.

A perfect, although exhausted, example of this can be seen through the commodification of the perfect body. Be it through magazines, television, movies or advertisements, individuals are bombarded by images of emaciated women and sculpted men. It has become generally accepted that this is the archetype of the female or male form. Those who do not meet these physical standards become dissatisfied with themselves and ravenous for the means which will expedite the achievement of their want.

Thus, money is pumped into everything from diet pills to weight gainer, exercise tapes to self-help books; our capitalist economy is infused with the dollars of body-conscious consumers. One of Marcuse's responses to the advanced, dominating industrial society that produces "false" needs is the Great Refusal. The Great Refusal is the denial of the material ease of industrial society and the embrace of freedom. His embodiment of this concept is art; art, in an accelerated state, is "the Great Refusal - the protest against that which is" (Pg 63).

Art, and the realm of being it creates, alienates it in a "high culture" that refuses to trade liberation and well-being for the meager prize of consumer comfort. It has the potential to distinguish itself from the bleak, diluted reality of society by creating and commenting on this reality in a fictitious, synthesized one. The essence of its truth lies in its contradiction to the industrial actuality. Through distance, art has the ability to comment on the ills and shortcomings of society. With the advancement of technological rationality, however, art is absorbed into the manipulated mainstream culture.

It loses its ability to speak honestly, to shock, and to instigate as the pedestal it had been placed upon is waddled away by technological progress and the conquest of nature. Art, once a privilege of the elite, has become readily available to the masses. Old classics are pacified and reinterpreted so as to fit comfortably in the social reality of the advanced industrial society, and the new avant-garde which aims for remoteness is incorporated into popular culture as brazen, yet manageable entertainment. "The Great Refusal", as it loses its distance and thus its capacity to explore social reality, "is in turn refused" (Pg 64). I feel the concept of "the Great Refusal" is made even more relevant today. I, like Marcuse, see that the isolation of art to high culture was the error of another repressive society which cannot be remedied by the mass production of art.

Art, in its availability to the populace, could have been extremely enriching and a catalyst for social action. Unfortunately, with this introduction art became another commodity in capitalism. It is no longer an outright protest against social norms, and even pieces that are become pacified by the general desensitized state of being we exist in. For example, the novel Paradise by Toni Morrison with its subjects of racism, murder, and abuse is seen as morbidly entertaining and emotionally moving, yet essentially ineffective in a society where such topics are breached every day in newspapers, television, and life in general. Paradise was even incorporated in "Oprah's Book Club", increasing sales of the book itself and ratings of the show. In short, it was assimilated into the consumer based capitalist system.

And like the other novels included in Oprah's club, it is assigned at the beginning of a month, discussed at the end of that month, then discarded for another. Literature loses its relevance after four weeks. It is no longer capable of shocking its way into our permanent memory, because we are essentially unshockable. Marcuse explores assimilation and the desensitization it causes further through the concept of the unhappy consciousness. The unhappy consciousness was the state of the libido before the intense mechanization that has come with technical progress. Prior to this mechanization, society was overtly repressive of the libido and sexual instinct.

The denial of sexual impulse encouraged the liberation of the libido, and people sought gratification "beyond the immediate erotogenic zones - a process of non-repressive sublimation" (Pg 73). This, combined with the hard living and working conditions of the pre-technical world, provided for an opposition between the pain of everyday work and pleasure. Individuals, although repressed in what was deemed moral sexual behavior, were liberated in their enjoyment of sex. The unhappy consciousness and the freedom it spurred is contrasted by the happy consciousness that exists in advanced industrial societies.

With the happy consciousness, there appears to be a greater degree of sexual liberation superficially since the idea of sex is not repressed. In actuality, however, the libido is stifled by its incorporation into everyday life. Lacking the taboos that once placed sexual activity in a forbidden realm, it merely becomes standard. Eroticism is downplayed and immediate, localized satisfaction becomes key.

This is ultimately the more repressive of the two since it facilitates compliance with, not transcendence of, society and reality. Essentially for Marcuse, sex is more satisfying and liberating when it is alienated and forbidden. While the acceptance and availability of sex have increased, I do not think it fair to claim that sex in general is no longer erotic ized. Libido being an instinctual drive, I think it will always persist in a state that craves the utmost satisfaction.

A positive in the assimilation of sexual impulses into popular culture and society is that it can be more freely explored without shame. More possibilities can be found in the drive to excite and satisfy the sexual appetite. The downside of such an increased sexual freedom, however, is seen in the rise of sexually transmitted disease. Erotic satisfaction can still be optimal in our society, it just must adapt to the threat of disease by proceeding in a safe manner.

While the incorporation of sex into accepted society may reduce the will (more appropriately, need) to liberate sexuality, I do not believe, even with these precautions, that it limits the actual enjoyment and possibilities sex can offer. Marcuse further explores this through his use of literature to highlight the contrast between Eros and sexuality. Eros in classic literature is only hinting at, it does not operate openly in the realm of reality. By doing so, it is defiant of, and comments on, societal actuality. Eros, in its defiance, is thus pursuant of liberty and freedom. Furthermore, it is enriched by the presence of Thanatos; indulgence leads to destruction in a metaphysical, not moral or societal, sense, and is therefore beyond the reaches of reality (Pg 77).

In contrast, sexuality, present in the literature of advanced industrial societies, openly embraces its brazen subject and in turn embraces social reality. It does not defy society, but rather is an integral part of it; sexuality is not distinct and remote, it is assimilated. It advances society by blatantly acknowledging it, and becomes a selling point in the commodification of the literature which incorporates it. Sexuality is thus exploited, and another avenue for liberation is closed off by the all-encompassing nature of technological progress. I think the most obvious example of the exploitation of sexuality present in literature today is the Harlequin romance. These books are written explicitly to be erotic, mass produced, and sold not in book stores, but in grocery stores since the average citizen is more likely to shop there.

The Harlequin romance is the quintessential example of sexual assimilation. Even the most conservative of individuals is more often offended by the poor quality of writing than the overtly sexual content. My feelings on this commodification of sexuality are torn. Literature written for mass appeal and mass sale that leaves no impact, such as the Harlequin romance, is a betrayal to the potential activism that art can have. However, again I contend that sexuality becoming a prominent component of popular culture is not necessarily a bad thing. Novels such as these that lack the Thanatos element, allow people to explore their sexual curiosities and desires more freely and extensively without the fear of metaphysical repercussions.

In response to all these ills that Marcuse finds in and with the dominant, exploitative industrial society, he formulates an alternative, the "new historical subject". The "new historical subject" is "the combination of centralized authority and direct democracy" (Pg 252). It involves "the planned utilization of resources for the satisfaction of vital needs with a minimum of toil, the transformation of leisure into free time, the pacification of the struggle for existence" (Pg 253). If free from manipulative motives and practices, technological rationality can facilitate the fulfillment of vital needs. This would be the centralized authority.

From this the autonomy of individuals would develop. With individual determination, the liberation of rational analysis of contradictions, options, and decisions would ensue; man would be free to think for himself. The overall success of the advanced industrial society makes this alternative implausible, though. Man is too content and too immersed in social reality: General material comfort, indoctrination of needs and wants, and assimilation at large. These all unite the people in acceptance of the dominant society and hinder freedom. Without freedom, liberation is not possible.

Disillusioned by the "conservative popular base" that the people have become, Marcuse sees the last source of opposition in "the substratum of the outcast and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors, the unemployed and the unemployable" (Pg 256). They are outside the established system and are therefore capable of highlighting its faults. I find the concept of the "new historical subject" to be too idealistic. With centralized authority, it is inherent that someone will try to hoard power for themselves. In doing so, individuals will again lose complete autonomy over themselves and their decisions. Where I do agree with Marcuse, however, is in his observation that people have become too content with capitalism to facilitate serious change.

We are so set with our material comforts and the promise of more material comforts that we do little to threaten them. In protest of the war, for example, many (not all) of those who do make the conscious point of opposing the actions of our government in Iraq do little more than state that. They make their opinion known, but do not take serious action to remedy it. In support of the war, this contentedness is even more apparent. Many (again, not all) endorse our military presence in the Middle East since a victory would ensure oil, and thus capital for our nation. If the dominant state that Marcuse argues against is to be overthrown, or even significantly changed, I believe he is right in saying that it must come from those who are outside and free from the benefits of capitalism.

Marcuse argues that with increased technological progress and bureaucratic control, the individual loses freedom and the will to liberate himself from domination. For the most part I support this, as in the cases of the commodification of needs, and art's inability to no longer effectively comment on and protest society. I do see that some liberation has been achieved through the rising awareness of sexuality through popular culture, but I also recognize that this liberation is due in large part to the marketing of sex and the assimilation that occurs through sale in general. I commend Marcuse for formulating an alternative to this reality he is so disillusioned with, but feel it is too idealistic to actually come to play (his pessimistic view of its possibility acknowledges this as well). When people become comfortable in a situation, regardless of whether it is best for them or not, it is hard to ignite the desire for change. Marcuse's ability to continue hoping for this change he fears will never come is perhaps the most beautiful example of his argument.

He is actively attempting to embody the freedom of thought and will he feels has been drained from the populace by advanced industrial societies..