Marcuse and Administration

Herbert Marcuse was a German sociologist and philosopher. He is best known for his works, “Eros and Civilization” and “One-Dimensional Man”. One of the primary ideas Marcuse developed in his work was that of administration. This article outlines Marcuse's theory of administration in light of his two most famous works. Additionally, the article explains the concept of administration in light of other concepts that influenced Marcuse's work and shows how Marcuse's concept has influenced other theorists.

Keywords: Absorption; Administration; Consumer Capitalism; Cultural Industry; False Needs; Great Refusal; McDonaldization; New Left; One-dimensional Thinking; Technological Rationality

Overview

Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) was a German sociologist and philosopher. His work is most closely is associated with the Frankfurt School, critical theory, and The New Left. He is best known for his works Eros and Civilization and One-Dimensional Man. One of the primary ideas Marcuse developed in his work was that of administration, which he identified with the rise of the technological and consumer society that employed unopposed advance forms of planning and management. These same systems allowed for the luxuries and leisure time that advanced capitalistic societies enjoy. Marcuse understood this, but worried that these systems also created false needs and separated the individual from the ability to refuse the narrative from these advanced forms of planning and management and, ultimately, become unable to create or participate in acts that could bring about social change (Kellner, 1991). This may sound pessimistic; however, those who knew Marcuse and his work claimed that the strength of his ideas on the administered society was the hopefulness and optimism that came with understanding how an administered society functioned and how we could change it for the better (Pippen, 1988).

The Administered Society

Marcuse's idea of administration had a number of influences. Like many social theorists of his time he worked in the shadows of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. He was also directly influenced by his Frankfurt School predecessors, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. This being the case, it should be no surprise that Marcuse developed a concept that included the intentional coercive actions found in Orwell's writings, the sedating pleasures outlined by Orwell, and the influence of a mass culture as imagined by Adorno and Horkheimer. Marcuse believed that the administered society both coerced and pleasured (although he would argue that the pleasure offered was less than authentic) as it separated individuals from their true needs.

The administered society has a number of key elements. First and foremost, administration requires an advanced capitalistic system. Advanced capitalistic systems have in place the forms of technology, planning, and management that make administration possible. This is true of other concepts that preceded Marcuse's including those from Marx, Orwell, and Huxley. The difference in Marcuse's idea was that administration included an expertise of consumer society that went beyond extracting work from a body, watching and directing the worker, or sedating the body. Administration also includes the mass gratification, market research, industrial psychology, polling, computer mathematics, and science of human relations that companies and governing institutions use to reach inside of the body and move the mind and soul (Bohm & Jones, 2009). In order to overcome the coercive nature of the administered society and still lay claim to its benefits, one must first understand how it functions.

Further Insights

Theoretical Influences

Orwell

The influence of George Orwell on Marcuse is evident is his use of the term "Orwellian language" in One-Dimensional Man (1990). Orwellian language is used by organizations, public and private, to define (or willfully mis-define) their activities and the nature of those activities. Marcuse also called this language one dimensional (as opposed to dialectical). By this he meant that language employed by dominant organizations was intended to go unchallenged and smooth over social contradictions and problems, and by doing so eliminate counter thoughts or actions (Kellner, 1990). A recent example of this type of language was used when a bill written to lessen the restrictions on industrial air pollution was called the Blue Sky Amendment. One dimensional language inverts meaning. The free is un-free, honorable is dishonorable, and the common is uncommon. At the core of Orwell's and Marcuse's theories are domination and the role that language plays in allowing it.

The difference between Orwell's "Big Brother" and Marcuse's administration ultimately is hope. Orwell fails to offer hope that the totalitarian state can be resisted and overthrown (Kellner, 1990). Marcuse believes the individual can refuse the dominant narrative of the consumer state, calling this the "Great Refusal." He believed that if people engage in dialectic with the past and with one another they can refuse the dominant or administered narrative and forge real social change. Marcuse saw this possibility of dialectic and refusal in art, philosophy, literature, student movements, and poor populations in third-world countries (Marcuse, 1991). This hope and belief in social change is what sets Marcuse apart from Orwell.

Huxley

At the heart of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is Henry Ford's famous saying that "history is bunk" (Firchow, 2002). Huxley's dystopian vision of mass contentment is only possible in Brave New World because of the absence of a rational dialectic with the past. The sense of false satisfaction that makes possible the dismissal of such a dialectical engagement is manufactured by overt government programs that provide the masses drugs (soma). In Marcuse's administered society the administering fiat is much less centralized. The forms of delivering sedation are as dispersed as the forces managing one dimension language. Marcuse focuses much of his attention on the process of fostering false need through advertising, packaging, and novelty. He writes about the manipulation required to create such needs and the abundance, waste, and planned obsolescence that keeps the cycle moving (Kateb, 1970). The administered society is every bit as sedated and cut off from history as Huxley's Brave New World. It is difficult to read Marcuse and not associate his idea of false needs back to Huxley's soma.

Marcuse's administered society is driven by the market forces within the consumer capitalism, which he refers to as technological rationality (Marcuse, 1991). Technological rationality is a form of instrumental rationality that is based on organizational goals. Technological rationality focuses on the "how" aspect of problem solving rather than addressing whether an action is right or just. Technological rationality does not need to be centrally managed. In fact what makes it so unnerving is that the same forces that brought an end to totalitarianism through the free market and technology can be every bit as authoritarian and, due to their dispersed nature, held less accountable. Where Huxley saw a centralized administration managing a mass of contented citizens, Marcuse saw market forces managing a mass of contented consumers.

Adorno & Horkheimer

Perhaps the greatest influence on Marcuse was from his Frankfurt School predecessors Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. Like Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer worried about how technology served the forces of domination. Unlike Marcuse, their focus was on totalitarian and fascist regimes. In their book, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Adorno and Horkheimer make the case that the rationality of the Enlightenment combined with nationalism will over time revert to a form of myth built on all sorts of superstition and popular misunderstandings. One of the dynamics that made the rise of this type of reasoning possible was the development of popular culture. Radio, "pulp" paperback novels, and popular music all feed the beast. These types of popular culture (referred to as the cultural industry) did more to close off the mind than open it. Additionally, radio and printed matter could be used by fascist regimes to manipulate the minds that were already open to these forms of popular culture (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1972). It was the idea that culture played a significant role in the manipulation of the masses that Marcuse adopted.

Once again, while his predecessors feared the centralized manipulation of the masses (this being reflective of totalitarian regimes of their era), Marcuse focused his critique on consumer capitalism. Leveraging the concept of the cultural industry, Marcuse developed an idea of administration that included a dispersed form of coercion that conveys one dimensional language to negate dialectical rationality and replaces the true needs for a more free society with false, manufactured needs. The dominating forces in society were as much cultural as they were market or government driven. Alongside laws were the pressures to live and look a certain way. The effect on the market place of goods was that individuals set aside the pursuit of true needs for a freer and better society in pursuit of the next model of a certain car or the latest fashion. The effect on the marketplace of ideas was that corporations and governing bodies learned to leverage the tools of the cultural industry to negate criticism and dialectic rationality. The result was mass contentment through one-dimensional rationality.

Freud

When writing about labor, Marcuse consistently utilized the language of dominance and oppression in his writings. This was not unusual among critical theorists who addressed social issues by leveraging the terms and concepts of Karl Marx. However, when Marcuse turned his focus to the greater society he employed the language of dominance and repression. These terms and concepts were derived from another influential psychological theorist, Sigmund Freud. In Eros and Civilization Marcuse looked to extend his concept of the administered society through the exploration of sex and the idea of freedom. Marcuse's basic argument is that in the administered society, sex becomes located in the genitals. In a free society sex flows through one's entire being and psyche.

The problem is one of replacing the idea of progress, as measured quantitatively, with the idea of freedom. Instead of pursuing real freedom and pleasure we are given administered happiness which can only be satisfied by the technology of the cultural industry. Administered happiness is all about creating and satisfying false needs. The result is a loss of understanding or connection with real needs. This is along the lines of Freud's claim that humans have learned to repress the pleasure principle and adhere instead to a reality principle (Bovone, 1985).

It is important to note that Eros and Civilization was a critique of Freud. Marcuse believed many of the elements of Freud's theory were no longer relevant to an administered society. Freudian categories, like the Oedipus complex, didn't reflect the current reality. Rather, children were socialized by the administered society. The father, when compared to the state or society as a whole, was largely ineffectual (Alford, 1987). Though Marcuse agreed with Freud's critique of civilization the underlying issues, as Marcuse understood them, were significantly different.

Elements of Marcuse's Theory

One-Dimensional Thought

One-dimensional thought is something that has evolved alongside modern society. In the beginning, rights and liberties were vital factors in creating the industrial society. The individual possessed unfettered access to the rational consideration of these rights and liberties. However, in time these rights and liberties were taken up by large organizations and replaced with a more productive or efficient rationality. Large organizations, private and public, integrated these rights and liberties, as well as their own narratives, into the whole of society. Once institutionalized, these rights and liberties were subject to the constraints imposed on society by the large organizations. Independent thought and autonomy had been replaced by the one-dimensional thought of the organizations. Only the ideas that large organizations could impose on a society were available for individuals to consider (Marcuse, 1991).

One-dimensional thought does not engage in a consideration of history, alternative ideas, or new possibilities. One-dimensional thought is promoted by politicians and purveyors of mass information to replace dialectic thought, public criticism, and protest with self-validating hypotheses which are repeated over and over again until they become hypnotic definitions (Marcuse, 1991). It doesn't matter if these arguments are true. What matters is that they work. One-dimensional thought presents an unchallenged statement that is intended to cut of discussion and reflection on the issue. Such a statement can do this by superficially appealing to common sense, strongly held values, or fear. The aim of the one-dimensional statement is to negate argument.

So why have we as a society accepted one-dimensional thought? Marcuse believed we accepted administration and one-dimensional thinking because the way of life since the rise of industrialization, technology, and management is so much better than it was before. We have more things and more leisure time. We have more comfort and less pain. We accept administration and one-dimensional thought because life is good (Marcuse, 1991).

Consumerism & False Needs

At the heart of Marcuse's work is a subtle shift away from the core of critical theory and the Marxist critique. Marcuse isn't writing about labor and society. He's writing about consumers and society. It isn't capitalists and labor stabilizing the means of production. Rather, it is the consumer society that is analyzed, interpreted, manipulated, and made part of a mass culture that stabilizes the capitalist mode of production (Kellner, 1984).

Marcuse was one of the first to identify the shift to consumer capitalism. For the student of history this shift can be seen in the historic speeches of twentieth century American presidents. The first is from the State of the Union address by Franklin D. Roosevelt just after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The second is from the State of the Union Address by George W. Bush just after the September 11 attacks. These two speeches reflect how large economies were understood at each particular point in history.

Marcuse believed that consumer capitalism operated in such a fashion as to contain any forces that might rebel, refute, or reject the system. Containment had to be ensured. One of the ways this could be done was by cultivating "false needs" among consumers (Butterfield, 2004). False needs are manufactured by large organizations. This is done through market research, advertising, and planned obsolescence. This keeps the consumer focused on obtaining the next new thing that adheres to the cultural ideal manufactured by the same large companies. False needs keep people engaged in the administered society. Marcuse called the manufacturing of false needs warfare on liberation (Marcuse, 1991). This warfare kept people from realizing that the vital, or real, needs of food, shelter, and clothing could be sufficient (Butterfield, 2004).

Absorption

Absorption is a very important function of the administered society. Marcuse believes that everything is absorbed into the culture of a society; that culture provides messaging that maintains or sustains administration. Advertising is not only advertising for a particular product or company, but also advertising that supports the entire administered society. In order for a society to remain stable it must be able to absorb the elements that become critical of the administration.

A good example of this is rap music. At a certain point in the rise of rap music, the art form was primarily a rebellious critique of white domination. The culture was able to absorb rap music and make it part of the mainstream culture and economic system. Today rap music is part of the administered society and even the music's most offensive and critical stars have found their ways into television and film. Even the rebellious critique of the administered society found in rap music has been absorbed and accessorized with flashy cars, clothes lines, preferred alcoholic spirits and fragrances. Marcuse wrote that the absorbent power of society depletes the artistic dimension by assimilating its antagonistic elements (Marcuse, 1991).

The Great Refusal

Marcuse feared that the administered society was one that sedated people with false needs and absorbed antagonistic critiques leaving individuals unable to refuse the culture of one-dimensional thinking. He believed that administration and one-dimensional thought could only be overcome by refusing to accept things as they are (Marcuse, 1991). When this is done en mass, he called it the Great Refusal. Refusal was the first step to changing the administered society. He saw hope in the marches and protests of African-Americans and students in the 1960s. The one thing he feared was that administration could negate refusal by absorbing it. Like rap music, what is discontent and refusal today can be a marketable part of the mainstream marketplace and culture tomorrow.

Viewpoints

Marcuse's Influence on Later Theory

It is hard to look at America today and imagine a social order without administration. The constant barrage of advertising and political sound bites leaves little room for reflective thought or dialectic discourse. Many feel the daily pressure to keep up with the Jones's and buy the latest gadget. Many more feel the pressure to buy goods and services that are required if they are to be good parents, lovers, or friends. Each new thing we buy requires us to engage in work that will allow us to pay for that item and the next item we are told we need. The postscarcity economy that exists in most administered societies allows us to live the good life. For most, the good life is a sufficient trade off for setting aside critical thinking. Marcuse's concept of administration seems less of a theory than a reflection of the world we now inhabit.

Marcuse is considered one of the more influential intellectuals of the 1960s. His work deeply influenced the New Left. Though he doesn't enjoy the same standing today as he did in the 1960s and '70s, his influence can be seen in the work of one of the world's most influential philosophers and social theorist, Jurgen Habermas, and in sharp criticism of business known as McDonaldization.

The New Left

Although the term New Left is often associated with the protest movements of the 1960s, it in fact refers to an intellectual core that included sociologist C. Wright Mills, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Noam Chomsky, Marcuse, and the more colorful Youth International Party (aka Yippies).

Marcuse was a champion of the New Left. His ideas were eerily similar to the Port Huron Statement and influenced both the Free Speech and Feminist Movements. Marcuse rejected violence as a solution and in this manner added his voice to those of the civil rights movement. Marcuse's message went beyond addressing the political and economic forces that were the bread and butter of the "Old Left." His message was about a new form of responsible revolution and understanding the connection between the domination anchored in individual unconsciousness and the one-dimensional thought of the social conscious (Herf, 1979). Some have referred to Marcuse as the "Father of the New Left" (Gennaro & Kellner, 2009).

Habermas & Communicative Actions

Jurgen Habermas is one of the most prolific and influential philosophers and social theorist living today, and his work has been deeply influenced Marcuse. Habermas's most influential theory, that of communicative actions, has many Marcusean elements. Communicative action theory is based on individuals entering into discourse with an attitude towards gaining an understanding without employing force, having sufficient knowledge of the topic, having knowledge of local presuppositions and rules, and the ability to effectively communicate in the particular language or dialect being employed. These conversations form the basis of understanding and a democratic society. Habermas believes that instrumental rationality is propagated by formal systems that effectively undermine these conversations and reasoned understanding. Habermas's instrumental rationality operates much like Marcuse's technological rationality and one dimensional thought. Habermas's concept of formal systems continues Marcuse's critique of administration. Though Habermas and Marcuse offer different solutions to the problem, i.e., discourse instead of revolt, that they define with the modern social order is very similar. This is due in no uncertain terms to Habermas viewing his work as providing new solutions to the problems identified by his predecessors, also in the Frankfurt School.

Perhaps Habermas offers the most concise critique of Marcuse. Habermas believed that Marcuse held too closely to the Marxist critique of capitalism and offered little more than utopian imaginings of revolt. He believed that Marcuse had given up on the possibility of deliberative democracy being sufficient to cure the ills of society (Alford, 1987). Habermas's treatment of Marcuse work is to adapt the ideas of administration and consumer capitalism and reject of Marcuse's proposed solutions. This approach recognizes that Marcuse, at a very early stage, understood and described elements of the administered society that remain very relevant today.

McDonaldization

McDonaldization, also referred to as post-Fordism, is a form of instrumental rationality based on efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. The concept was developed by George Ritzer. Ritzer's concern was that such instrumental rationality leads to an irrational rationality. Ritzer believes that what individuals do to fulfill the McDonaldized rationality of work and society is often in conflict with their own best interests and values. In this sense McDonaldization is a form of irrational rationality. The idea is one of the more vibrant and well-discussed topics in understanding globalism and consumerism today. Ritzer was deeply influenced by Marcuse’s idea of the consumer-administered society, false needs, and technological rationality (Patterson, 2005).

The work of Herbert Marcuse, particularly his work on administration, has had a profound historical influence on social theory. But his work is not without its critics. Of course there are those who simply assign his work to a particular era and give little thought to how his work has influenced others. Yet it is hard to ignore the vibrancy of Marcuse's ideas which continue to influence social theory and can be heard in the speeches of presidents, songs like the Black Eyed Peas' Where Is the Love, and the social criticism of writers like George Ritzer.

Terms & Concepts

Absorption: Marcuse's idea that protests and critiques antagonistic to the dominant culture could be absorbed into the greater culture and made a harmless part of the mainstream.

Administration: Marcuse's description of the consumer-based capitalistic economy and culture. The administered society developed with the rise of technology, consumerism, and advance forms of planning, advertising, and management after industrialization. The administered society managed the masses by sedating them with the "good life" of consumer goods and services.

False Needs: Needs manufactured by the administered society through market research, advertising, and planned obsolescence. False needs keep consumers focused on obtaining the next new thing that adheres to the constructed cultural ideal. False needs keep people engaged in the administered society and keep people from realizing that vital needs of food, shelter and clothing are sufficient.

Great Refusal: The ability of the masses to simply refuse to accept things as they are in the administered society.

McDonaldization: A form of instrumental rationality based on efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control developed by George Ritzer. McDonaldization is a phenomenon that saturates all of society and leads individuals to act in ways that are in conflict with their own best interests and values. In this sense McDonaldization is a form of irrational rationality.

New Left: A description often associated with most protest movements of the 1960's, but in fact refers to an intellectual core that included sociologist C. Wright Mills, Student for a Democratic Society (SDS), Noam Chomsky, Marcuse, and the more colorful Youth International Party (Yippies).

One-dimensional Thinking: A cultural phenomenon that provides a one-sided narrative championed by powerful organizations as the social and cultural ideal. Independent thought and autonomy are replaced by the ideas that dominant organizations integrate into the culture.

Technological Rationality: Rationality that is based on goals of technology, namely production, efficiency, costs, and return on investment. This rationality focuses on the "how" aspect of problem solving rather than addressing whether an action is right or just.

Bibliography

Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1972). The dialectic of enlightenment. New York: Continuum Publishing.

Alford, C. (1987). Eros and civilization after thirty years. Theory & Society, 16, 869. Retrieved February 8, 2010 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10746668&site=ehost-live

Böhm, S, & Jones, C. (2009). Introduction. In Negations: Essays in critical theory. London: May Fly Books.

Bovone, L. (1985). The problem of freedom in contemporary German sociology. Sociological Theory, 3, 76-86. Retrieved February 8, 2010 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15149094&site=ehost-live

Butterfield, E. (2004). Sartre and Marcuse on the relation between needs and normativity. Sartre Studies International, 10, 28-46. Retrieved February 9, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15796538&site=ehost-live

Firchow, P.E. (2002). Huxley, Fukuyama, Marcuse, and the end of history. Literary Imagination, 4.

GARLICK, S. (2011). A new sexual revolution? Critical theory, pornography, and the Internet. Canadian Review Of Sociology, 48, 221-239. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=64500938

Garlick, S. (2013). Complexity, masculinity, and critical theory: revisiting Marcuse on technology, eros, and nature. Critical Sociology (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 39, 223-238. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85920129

Gennaro, S., & Kellner, D. (2009). Under surveillance: Herbert Marcuse and the FBI. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 26, 283-313.

Herf, J. (1979). The critical spirit of Herbert Marcuse. New German Critique, , 24. Retrieved February 10, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5310707&site=ehost-live

Holland, N. J. (2011). Looking backwards: A feminist revisits Herbert Marcuse's Eros and Civilization. Hypatia, 26, 65-78. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65014933

Kateb, G. (1970). The political thought of Herbert Marcuse. Commentary, 49.

Kellner, D. (1990). From 1984 to one-dimensional man: Critical reflections on Orwell and Marcuse. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 10, 223-252.

Kellner, D. (1984). Herbert Marcuse and the crisis of Marxism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kellner, D. (1991). Introduction. In, Marcuse, H. One dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Marcuse, H. (1964/1991). One dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Patterson, M. (2005). Consumption and everyday life. New York: Routledge.

Pippin, R., et al., (Eds.). (1988). Introduction. In, Marcuse. Critical Theory and the promise of Utopia. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Suggested Reading

Gobeil, J. (2011). Financialization and surfeit-repression: An omega point of one dimensional society. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 1612. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85659140

Holt, W. (2011). Eminent domain: A legal examination of the public good. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 1428. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85658956

Kellner, D., Lewis, T.E., & Pierce, C. (2008). On Marcuse. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Marcuse, H. (1971). An essay on liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.

Wiggerhaus, R. (1995). The Frankfurt School: Its history, theories, and political significance. Boston: MIT Press.