In the essay “Repressive Tolerance” (), the Germanborn American critical theorist Herbert Marcuse () of the Franklin School of political theorists . When Herbert Marcuse’s essay entitled “Repressive tolerance” was Keywords: Repressive Tolerance; Herbert Marcuse; Social Organisation of Knowledge. Herbert Marcuse’s resonant and insightful words: “In the contemporary period, the democratic argument for abstract tolerance tends to be.
|Published (Last):||20 October 2007|
|PDF File Size:||2.79 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.32 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The publicity of self-actualization promotes the removal of the one and the other, it promotes existence in that immediacy which, in a repressive society, is to use another Hegelian term bad immediacy schlechte Unmittelbarkeit.
Accessed October 5, Such a society does not yet exist; progress toward it is perhaps more than before arrested by violence and suppression on a global scale. In past and different circumstances, the speeches hdrbert the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. But with the concentration of mqrcuse and political power and the integration of opposites in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination, effective dissent is blocked herebrt it could freely emerge; in the formation of opinion, in information and communication, in speech and assembly.
But I believe that there is a “natural right” of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate.
Repressive Tolerance |
Or, if a newscaster reports the torture and murder of civil rights workers in the same unemotional tone he uses to describe the stockmarket or the weather, or with the same great emotion with which he says his commercials, then such objectivity is spurious–more, it offends against humanity and truth by being calm where one should be enraged, by refraining from accusation where accusation is in the facts themselves.
Until there shall have been devised, and until opinion is willing to accept, some mode of plural voting which may assign to education as such the degree of superior influence due to it, and sufficient as a counterpoise to the numerical weight of the least educated class, for so long the benefits of completely universal suffrage cannot be obtained without bringing with them, as it appears to me, more than equivalent evils. But what is to repressivw done?
And if it is necessary to break the established universe of meaning and the practice folerance in this universe in order to enable man to find out what is true and false, this deceptive impartiality would have to be abandoned. Del Grosso Destreri in Studi di Sociologia. I shall presently try to suggest the direction in which an answer may be sought In any case, the contrast is not between democracy in the abstract and dictatorship in the abstract. In some cases, companies a Tolerance is first and foremost for the sake of the heretics–the historical road toward humanitas appears as heresy: In other words, it would presuppose that which is still to be accomplished: A Critique of Pure Tolerance.
But the subject of this autonomy is never the contingent, private individual as that which he actually is or happens to be; it is rather the individual as a human being who is capable of being free with the others. In the firmly established liberal society of England and the United States, freedom of speech and assembly was granted even to the radical enemies of society, provided they did not make the transition from word to deed, from speech to action.
All points of view can be heard: Equality of tolerance becomes abstract, spurious. Repressive tolerance and free speech. Their range extends all the way from normal exploitation, poverty, and insecurity to the victims of wars, police actions, military aid, etc. However, censorship of art and literature is regressive under all circumstances. There, passive resistance was carried through on a massive scale, which disrupted, or threatened to disrupt, the economic life of the country.
Here are some examp 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.
Repressive Tolerance, by Herbert Marcuse ()
Herbert Marcuse official homepage. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden toledance that permeates the free media. In such a society, tolerance is de facto limited on the dual ground of legalized violence or suppression police, armed forces, guards of all sorts and of the privileged position held by the predominant interests and their ‘connections’.
The tolerance which is the life element, the token of a free society, will never be the marcuee of the powers that be; it can, under the prevailing conditions of tyranny by the majority, only be won in the sustained effort of radical minorities, willing to break this tyranny and to work for the emergence of a free and sovereign majority – minorities intolerant, militantly intolerant and disobedient to the rules of behavior which tolerate destruction and suppression.
The progressive historical force of tolerance lies in its extension to those hedbert and forms of dissent which are not committed to the status quo of society, and not confined to the institutional framework of the established society.
But to refrain from violence in the face of vastly superior violence is one thing, to renounce a priori violence against violence, on ethical or psychological grounds because it may antagonize sympathizers to,erance another.
The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: The issue was only the degree and extent of intolerance.
Cite this article Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.