Charles Reitz 2009 Conference Paper

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

A New MARCUSE:

Educational Theorist for a New Generation

 by Charles Reitz

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 “IT CAN STILL BE DONE.”

                 –Herbert Marcuse, “Lecture on Higher Education and Politics, Berkeley, 1975” (2009b, 43)

 

For the sake of the genuine political freedom that has yet to be achieved, in the U.S. especially, we need to recapture dialectically a dimension of the emancipatory theory of Herbert Marcuse that has hitherto been marginalized and neglected.[1] As one of the 20th century’s most visionary social commentators, his critical social theory needs to be much more fully appreciated as a liberatory philosophy of education and theory of revolutionary multiculturalism.

Marcuse theorized the real possibility that education could act against political alienation and oppression. The general framework of his critical social theory sublates a central assumption of classical European philosophy: higher education in the liberal arts and humanities cultivates both the aesthetic sense and political will that can help us accomplish our cosmopolitan humanization.

The continuing appeal of Marcuse’s writings stems especially from his work on the nature of learning and the political implications of different types of knowledge, particularly his critique of the alienating effects of the prevailing modes of education in the United States, Germany, France, and elsewhere, and from his theory of the dis-alienating power of the aesthetic imagination.

Marcuse contends that artists and intellectuals (especially) can find in their own personal estrangement a critical impulse to serve a future emancipation of self and society. Art and philosophy (i.e., the humanities) can, by virtue of their admittedly elitist critical distance, oppose an oppressive status quo and furnish an intangible, yet concrete, telos by which to guide personal growth and emancipatory social practice. Marcuse is attracted to the humanities because their subject matter and methodology are thought to focus upon questions of the meaning of human experience, rather than on the sheer description of conditions (this latter procedure being rejected as the non-philosophical approach of behaviorism and empiricism in the social and physical sciences). He regards classical learning by means of discourse and reflection on philosophy, literature, drama, music, painting, sculpture, etc., as liberating insofar as this is thought to impel humanity beyond the “first dimension” (the realm of conformity to what is) to the multidimensional world of significance and meaning that allows us to re-create life in accordance with the higher potentials of human beings. 

Neither art nor higher education, on their own, can fulfill the promise of liberation, yet in Marcuse’s view, the insights provided by study of the humanities furnish the intellectual precondition to any political transformation of alienated human existence into authentic human existence. In Marcuse’s view, the concrete and critical dimensions of art disclose the inevitably conflicted condition of human culture. This is the ontological foundation for the classically educative function of tragedy. Yet, at the same time, the aesthetic ethos restores humanity’s most rational and moral goals: seeking the convergence of universal human need with gratification, society with human dignity, politics with beauty: “. . . the development of the productive forces renders possible the material fulfillment of the promesse du bonheur[2] expressed in art; political action – the revolution – is to translate this possibility into reality” (Marcuse, [1958] 1961, 115).

Marcuse’s initial cultural impact in the U.S. was connected closely to the intellectual and political, campus-based turmoil of the 1960s, and was related to his influence on the theory and practice of the global student movement and his assessment of key issues in higher education. Marcuse spoke to the almost infinite facets of alienation and domination in every day life, i.e., at school, on the job, and in recreational activities, where these were thought to be regulated by a “total administration” (Marcuse, 1964, 7). He stressed the emancipatory potential of a renascent sensuality under the guidance of the most rational and legitimate goals of art. For him, a new form of liberal arts education could act against one-dimensionality and cultural alienation, re-humanizing political life.

Marcuse’s philosophy of protest within higher education decades ago was prescient especially in its criticism of the multiversity vision of Clark Kerr (1963). Kerr’s educational philosophical point of view represented a decisive departure from the traditional collegiate self-conception as an autonomous ivory tower or grove of academe, one step removed from the practical realm, and stressed instead a logic of corporate and government involvement in higher education. Institutionalized during the 1960s among other places at Columbia, Harvard, Berkeley, and at the State Universities of Wisconsin and New York, this philosophy of the extended, “service” university has now been

implemented almost everywhere. As far back as the post-Sputnik, early-Vietnam era, critics of the U.S. multiversity pointed out that the phenomenal growth of these conglomerate higher education systems was heavily subsidized by grants from the federal government and corporations for research into areas such as aerospace, intelligence, weapons. A massive expansion of Reserve Officer Training Corps programs also occurred. What today would be called neoliberal or market interests (Marcuse called them then counterrevolutionary interests) were given priority in higher educational policy. Marcuse objected to the dehumanization displayed in the multiversity’s new and increasing commitment to behavioral objectives in teaching and learning and performance-based criteria for intellectual competence, as well as the growing predominance of managerial language and thinking in the organization of higher education.

Dehumanization, in Marcuse’s estimation, was thought to be the result of training people to forget (Marcuse, 1964, 104) their authentic human potentials – by educationally eradicating the realm where this knowledge was considered to be best preserved, i.e., in the humanities. In some ways very much like conservative educational commentator Allan Bloom (1987), Marcuse values high art and the humanities precisely because they teach the sublimation of the powerful urge for pleasure that in other contexts threatens destruction. Marcuse was more than dubious of the traditionally affirmative quality of  Bildungshumanismus, high-serious German art and education. Still, he did believe that the traditional liberal arts philosophy also had a critical dimension. The liberal arts and humanities are not seen simply as purveyors or as apologists of the dominant culture. On the contrary, they are said to make possible the very development of critical thinking and human intelligence itself. Here the arts relate to higher education and advanced forms of knowledge, not in terms of “arts instruction,” but as the very basis of a general educational theory.  In both his earliest and latest writings Marcuse directs special attention to the emancipatory power of the intelligence gained through a study of the humanities.

  Marcuse urges education and art as countermovements to alienation: an aesthetic rationality is thought to transcend the prevailing logic of performance and achievement in the one-dimensional society and to teach radical action towards justice and human fulfillment. He even sees a possible reconciliation of the humanistic and technological perspectives via the hypothesis that art may become a social and productive force for material improvement, re-constructing the economy in accordance with aesthetic goals and thus reducing alienation in the future. Marcuse theorizes that art provides a deeper kind of cognition – not through mimesis or by replicating worldly objects – but by recalling the species-essence of the human race from philosophical and political oblivion (Marcuse [1955] 1966, 232). He contends that the reality of death and human suffering assert themselves as pivotal phenomena in the educative process of recollection, even where the artist and the work of art draw away from them in pursuit of an eternity of joy and happiness. Marcuse's understanding of the cognitive value of art and philosophy, particularly the great literatures of classical Greece and modern Europe, thus needs also to be more fully appreciated.

Marcuse’s valuable philosophical excursion into a discussion of the nature of newer and older forms of liberal arts education has been largely ignored within the Marcusean New Left, not to mention within wider U.S. academic circles. On those occasions where the humanities do become thematic in the U.S. context, the discussion is routinely swamped by national chauvinism, conservative moralism, and provincialism at the hands of William Bennett (2003), E. D. Hirsch, Jr. (1988), Allan Bloom (1987), Dinesh D’Souza (1992), et. al.  Herbert Marcuse’s thought, on the other hand, is permeated with a multifaceted concern for the societal implications of art, especially its power as an educative force linked to radical action for an egalitarian political future.

Two extremely interesting documents in which educational philosophy and the politics of education are Marcuse’s primary focus are available at the Frankfurt Marcuse Archive. These detailed outlines for lectures on education both link theoretical learning explicitly to practical efforts at socio/cultural transformation. These documents are published for the first time in Marcuse’s Challenge to Education (Kellner, Lewis, Pierce, and Cho, 2009) as “Lecture on Education, Brooklyn College, 1968” and “Lecture on Higher Education and Politics, Berkeley, 1975.” The key ideas in them constitute what might be termed a new liberal arts model for higher education, and this, in my opinion, has contemporary relevance to the theory and practice of education right now world-wide. Marcuse’s immense respect for theoretical education and its power to enhance human life is reflected in the central tenet of his remarks: the belief that our future and our freedom hinge on an expanded emphasis within general education on radically democratic political action. While he has elsewhere (in Eros and Civilization) pointed to the philosophies of Kant and Schiller with regard to the critical rationality of art in higher education, most educators in the U.S. have been unfamiliar with this pedagogical perspective. Of course, certain outstanding figures in the history of education in the U.S., like John Dewey, Charles W. Eliot, and W.E.B. DuBois had studied in Germany or otherwise knew well the value of its high culture. Nonetheless, Marcuse is right about the regrettable fact that general education in the United States is really “a very recent concept” (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 33). Marcuse does not elaborate the historical detail in this regard, but a special effort toward a liberal arts foundation for general education was undertaken in the U.S. during the 1940s after the Second World War. This was rooted primarily in the great books movement and the work of Robert M. Hutchins, Chancellor of the University of Chicago, as well as in the Harvard University Committee Report on the Objective of General Education in a Free Society, General Education in a Free Society (1945). In this context it must be remembered that general education was a conservative, cold war phenomenon hostile to social criticism and directed against progressive reform efforts in education.

            Marcuse confronts the ideals of U.S. general education with its social reality. Education is “not general even today” (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 33). Access to general education, he says, remains confined to the privileged few and is an upper class phenomenon, not only because it is an expression of underlying structures of social inequality, but because it contains a potentially dangerous critical dimension. In the existing U.S. social order, general education tends to be socially and institutionally restricted, he emphasizes, because of  “the subversive element . . .” (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 33) in this education. Theoretical education involves  “. . . knowledge, intelligence, reason as catalysts of social change projection of the possibilities of a ‘better’ order; violation of socially useful taboos, illusions” (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 33-34). Opposition to this general theoretical education arises “from below and from above” (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 34) due to a deeply seated anti-intellectualism in U.S. history and culture. Still, Marcuse stressed in 1968 that reform efforts toward general education were then gaining momentum, and this was occurring . . .

. . . on a very material basis: the need of industrial society to increase the supply of skilled workers and employees, especially the need for scientists, technicians, etc. for the efficient development of the productive forces and their apparatus and, more recently, the need for psychologists and sociologists for analyzing and projecting and stimulating economic and political demand (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 34).

 

In the intervening years since Marcuse addressed the material forces impelling U.S. education toward a new emphasis on the general and the theoretical, the world has witnessed the full-fledged coming of the information age and the ascendancy of the internet and electronic technologies for information processing. We have also seen the resurgence of a culturally conservative general education movement in the U.S. with the advent of the culture wars in the mid-1980s under Reagan, and their continuation in the neoconservatism of the Bush administrations. Still, Marcuse stressed something in this 1968 manuscript which we tend to gloss over today, that is, that the social dynamics at work here have a dialectical character: they require that education must permit (for some) unrestricted access to high quality knowledge in the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences in order to be competitive in the global economic market and to guide the political cultures of nations in a sophisticated manner. Yet education must also shield this information-based global society against radical change. Marcuse anticipated back then (e.g. in Counterrevolution and Revolt, 1972) the now raging tendencies to reinsinuate an elitist, Eurocentric program for the liberal arts in American general education against the critical impulses within it toward multiculturalism, social history, and critical social theory.

            Marcuse nonetheless emphasizes the potential of an internal political factor within general education to become emancipatory. This occurs when reason is permitted to pursue the real possibilities embedded within the established cultures that can enhance and protect universal human rights and socio-economic equality. In his estimation, what the future needs most is higher education in the liberal arts and sciences with critical civic purpose that can politically transcend the established culture:

To create the subjective conditions for a free society [it is] no longer sufficient to educate individuals to perform more or less happily the functions they are supposed to perform in this society or extend ‘vocational’ education to the ‘masses.’ Rather . . [we must] . . . educate men and women who are incapable of tolerating what is going on, who have really learned what is going on, has always been going on, and why, and who are educated to resist and to fight for a new way of life (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 35).    

 

Traditional liberal arts education must be renewed in his estimation and must become actively engaged for social justice. Students and teachers must “become partisan, that is, against oppression, moronization, brutalization” (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 38). There needs to be a key unity in education of critical thought and radical action; the need for the movements of change must be made evident in systems of schooling “preparing the ground for a better, more humane society” (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 37). Critical educators and students need to continue to take risks and struggle to infuse the curriculum with analysis of the “critical, radical movements and theories in history, literature, philosophy” (Marcuse, [1968] 2009, 37). The curriculum must afford a world-historical,


international, and multicultural[3] perspective that examines the pivotal social struggles

that have led to the emergence of various standards of criticism in ethics, in logic, in the worlds of art, physical science, production, and technology. These standards constitute the criteria of judgment which intelligence requires, and critical education, according to Marcuse, grounded in the rational kernel of the Hegelian educational philosophy emphasizing critical theorizing, must necessarily also be linked to its emancipatory political action component.

To attain our goal, we need knowledge. It is still true that theory is the guide of radical practice. We need history because we need to know how it came about that civilization is what it is today: where it went wrong. And we need the history not only of the victors, but also of the victims. We need a sociology which can show us where the real power is that shapes the social structure. We need economics which are not “sublimated” to mathematics. We need science in order to reduce toil, pain, disease, and to restore nature. It is still to a great extent up to you to get such teaching and learning, to insist on the “missing courses” and persons, on class discussion and criticism, and the like.

And outside the university? “Community work,” based on grass roots discontent is easily ridiculed by the super-radicals as “social work” for the Establishment. But under the counterrevolution, and in the present situation of monopoly capitalism, what was formerly harmless becomes increasingly intolerable for the power structure. The space for concessions increasingly narrows! And there is still room for political activity. A resumption of the tradition of the sixties: boycotts, pickets, demonstrations, against the brutal support of fascist regimes, the policy of soaking he poor, racism and sexism, and the destruction of our life environment. Demonstrations at the right time and on concrete issues! (Marcuse, 2009b, 43)

 

Catalyst groups of students and faculty within higher education institutions have quite remarkably moved educational theory and practice forward in recent decades, especially through the anti-racist and anti-sexist multicultural education reform movement. Critical education, embodied in a new multicultural approach to the liberal arts and sciences, has in practice disclosed the real need for and revolutionary possibility of re-humanized and egalitarian forms of productive relations, relations to nature, and interpersonal dynamics, such that these can cultivate the aesthetic and moral worth of civilized life.

What have been called the civilizing forces of our age, the organized social struggles against racism, sexism, poverty, war, and imperialism, have educated us about alienation, oppression, power, and empowerment. Learning from real world struggles aims at an understanding of the principles of action required for human beings to grasp theoretically, and possess politically, the economic processes that today divest us from our own creative work and communal power. It is precisely these productive processes that must be socialized through revolution to eliminate capitalism’s characteristic political inequality and alienation.

Marcuse’s political-philosophical vision and cultural critique make a powerful contribution to the emancipatory analysis of ongoing social circumstances of corporate control of the economy and U.S. global domination. Worldwide economic inequality and growing immiseration[4] have gone hand-in-hand with U.S.-led globalization and the current U.S. financial debacle. This unruly episode of monopoly capitalism’s tendency to self-destruct has brought to an end what Marcuse earlier described as the harmoniously integrated and totally administered political universe of the liberal welfare/warfare state. The political imperatives of neoliberalism have been more openly vicious than the “comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom” (Marcuse, 1964, 1) he condemned in the 1960s. Yet these developments do not render Marcuse’s educational and political insights by any means obsolete. I contend that Marcuse broke through the cold war paralysis of criticism in the U.S. making it possible for many students to reframe social circumstances theoretically and really learn. At the same time he became the educators’ educator, paving the way, decades ago for the critical insights of radical educational theorists like Henry Giroux, Douglas Kellner, Peter McLaren, and others today (each of whom acknowledges a major debt to Marcuse).

McLaren (1995, 1997), who taught for years in Toronto, has importantly emphasized the contemporary shift to a more predatory culture. Only quite recently the news media brought us new disclosures almost daily about the U.S. military’s use of torture and prisoner abuse (Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo), civilian massacres and war crimes (Fallujah, Haditha), not to mention loaded intelligence that the U.S. Defense Department desired as a pretext for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Henry Giroux (2006, 2005), now at McMaster in Hamilton, refers to these events as constituting a new dark age, with a “New Authoritarianism” putting “America at the Edge.” In this rapacious context, it would be unconscionable for critical theory to equate its praxis with philosophical and literary criticism and the development of an aesthetic taste for cosmic ironies. If it did (as much non-sociological, literary theory and postmodern philosophy does today), it would be operating fully within the conventional division of mental from physical labor and the relations of power that these divisions represent in monopoly capitalist society. Critical theory must not be stripped in this manner of its crucial dimension of defiance and its power of transformation. Peter McLaren reinforces this point against postmodernism’s ostensibly critical literary and aesthetic approach to education when he urges educators to “take the struggle over the social division of labor as seriously as we do the struggle over meaning and representation” (McLaren, 1997, 13).

Likewise, Douglas Kellner (2009, 2005) has written extensively on critical theory and its future. He argues that it is time that a new class analysis and a new class politics revitalize critical social theory (Kellner, 1989, 228-29). This interest is central to his ongoing innovative work on the impacts on education of globalization, the restructuring of capital, media spectacle, and new technologies. Kellner emphasizes that when a critical pedagogy is tied to new critical theory, it can have real emancipatory impact:

Critical social theories conceptualize the structures of domination and resistance. They point to forms of oppression and domination contrasted to forces of resistance that can serve as instruments of change. [. . .] Thus, critical social theories are weapons of critique and instruments of practice as well as cognitive maps.  [. . .]  If a theory illuminates a phenomenon . . . and produces altered reception of it (or perhaps rejection), or inspires the production of oppositional . . . practices, then the theory turns out to be valuable both in its theoretical and practical effects. (Kellner, 1995, 25-27)

 

Human intelligence, for Kellner, is emergent from the need to overcome material, historical, and cultural oppression. Hence, his criticisms of the nation’s post 9/11 warmongering, false patriotism, and media propaganda (Kellner, 2005, 2003).

These critical educators are focusing today on advanced capitalism’s clear incompatibility with authentic democracy. They combine a critique of the logic of capital accumulation and global predation with a critique of education for social control and the replication of the unequal social division of labor. Giroux very correctly reproaches the reactionary culture warriors who claim multicultural reform in education has already gone “too far” with his studied assessment that it “hasn’t gone nearly far enough” (Giroux, 2004, 16). McLaren (2000, l997) calls for the pedagogy of revolution and revolutionary multiculturalism – that is, teaching about more than diversity: about the structured social dynamics of class exploitation, racism, gender inequality, empire, and war. As he sees it, we are compelled by the force of economic necessity as well as the ethics of equality to alter these reproductive processes and to pursue “the common goal of transforming the exploitative social relations of global capitalism” (McLaren, 1997, 69).

Today’s critical educators are extending and deepening Marcuse’s philosophy. Certainly, a world economic system based on equality and multicultural democracy is essential to a future of sustainability and peace. Ultimately, to me, the inherently political process of multicultural education must also include important debate and struggle around the central problems of labor and the inequalities of wealth, particularly how these affect schooling and the social reproduction/social reconstruction of the political-economic order (Reitz, 2004). Using traditional Marxist terminology in 1933 Marcuse advocated the “socialization of the means of production, their administration by the ‘immediate producers’…” as a precondition for a socialism which negates the methods of capitalist production. “This includes, to begin with, the abolition of wage labor” (Marcuse, [1933] 1998, 224-25).

Marcuse also called for a new educational humanism built on the admonition from Kant: Schooling must aim at the better future condition of the human race (Marcuse, 1972, 27). Contemporary education theorists like Henry Giroux (1988), James A. Banks (1997) and Harry C. Boyte (1996) understand this as cosmopolitan civic education in the interest of global democracy. It means the revolutionary liberation of work from its conventional status as a cost of production (subservient to the intensified dynamics of private accumulation) to its full recognition as a resource uniquely to be treasured since its generative power is the font of all social abundance. Public work (Boyte and Kari, 1996, 201) represents the redemption of alienated labor through a process of production and distribution in the public interest and for the public good, where this process is driven by creativity in common cause toward the goal of an egalitarian and intercultural commonwealth of freedom – something I would call socialism.

During the 1960s Marcuse’s voice shattered much of the silence structured into the conventional study of philosophy and educational issues in higher education in the U.S. By introducing students in the social sciences and humanities to the Frankfurt School’s view of critical theory, Marxism, and classical German philosophy, he furnished his readers with a theoretical orientation otherwise largely untaught in the U.S. system of education. Multidimensionality functions as a restorative presence within Marcuse’s philosophizing, as it should be for all educators, but often does not for those narrowly trained in the dominant patterns and habits of thought in today’s U.S. academic routines. This classical dimension in Marcuse’s thought enabled him to assess critically the behaviorism, empiricism, and positivism still prevalent in many areas of unreconstructed Anglo-American higher education.

In my estimation, Marcuse’s efforts have actually led to a recovery of philosophy in the post-1960s United States academic context, especially among a new generation of scholars in the humanities and social sciences who are more conscious than ever of issues arising from conflicts involved in the context of our political, moral, and academic culture. After WW II, logical positivism had attained a near monopoly in U.S. graduate schools of philosophy and generally prevailed as the underlying scholarly methodology within the undergraduate curricula as well. European approaches such as phenomenology, existentialism, Marxism, and critical theory tended to be severely marginalized, even at the most prestigious private and the largest state universities. Although Marcuse died in 1979, I believe that the philosophical upheavals which developed throughout the 1980s in the American Philosophical Association (APA), for example splitting “analysts” and “pluralists,” were substantially due to his influence. My personal supposition is that the APA’s own kind of Positivistenstreit[5] could not have occurred apart from Herbert Marcuse’s immense impact.

Marcuse’s 1969 APA address “The Relevance of Reality” vividly demonstrates his radical and heretical stance vis à vis U.S. academic philosophy (Marcuse 1969b). Marcuse called for a rethinking of four key areas of philosophy: 1) linguistic analysis, emphasizing a new, more political linguistics; 2) aesthetics, emphasizing the nexus of artwork and society; 3) epistemology, moving towards an historical understanding of transcendent knowledge; and 4) the history of philosophy itself, emphasizing the internal relationships linking theory of knowledge (and hence theory of education) to the theory of government and the theory of politics since Plato: “authentic democracy presupposes equality in the ways, means, and time necessary for acquiring the highest level of knowledge” (Marcuse, 1969b, 243).

Marcuse reclaimed elements of the classical philosophical traditions in order to confront the political economy and culture of corporate capitalism with an immanent critique of its own philistinism and provincialism. Critical theorizing in this form rethinks

both conventional rationality and the economic order and provides us with the necessary and developing standards of informed judgment about alienation and social transformation. These criteria enable us to build from within the realities of the present the partnership organizations and institutions of the future that will permit new ways of holding resources and real opportunities for all persons to reclaim the full social power of labor, leadership, and learning.

 

Reference Works

Banks, James A. 1988. “Approaches to Multicultural Curriculum Reform,” Multicultural Leader, V. 1, N. 2, Educational Materials & Services Center.

 

________. 1997. Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society. New York: Teachers College Press.

 

Bennett, William J. 2003. Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.

 

Best, Steven and Douglas Kellner. 2001. The Postmodern Adventure. New York: Guilford.

 

Bloom, Allan. 1987. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Bokina, John and Timothy J. Lukes (eds.). 1994.  MARCUSE: From the New Left to the

Next Left (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1994)

 

Boyte, Harry C. and Nancy N. Kari. 1996. Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

 

Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York Basic Books.

 

D’Souza, Dinesh. 1992. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York: Vintage Books.

 

Freire, Paulo. 1993. Pegagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

 

Giroux, Henry A. 2006. America at the Edge. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

 

________. 2005. Against the New Authoritarianism: Politics after Abu Ghraib. Winnipeg, Manitoba, CA: Arbeiter Ring Publishers.

 

________. 2004. Take Back Higher Education: Race, Youth, and the Crisis of Democracy in the Post Civil Rights Era. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

 

________. 1988. Schooling and the Struggle for Public Life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Harvard University Committee Report on the Objective of General Education in a Free Society. 1945. General Education in a Free Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

Hirsch, Jr., E. D. 1988. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. New Yorn: Random House, Vintage.

 

Kellner, Douglas, Tyson Lewis, Clayton Pierce, K. Daniel Cho. 2009. Marcuse’s Challenge to Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

Kellner, Douglas. 2007. “Introduction: Marcuse, Art, and Liberation,” in Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume 4, Art and Liberation. Douglas Kellner, (ed.) London and New York: Routledge.

 

_______. 2005. Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy: Terrorism, War, and Election Battles. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

 

_______. 2003a. From 9/11 to Terror War: The Dangers of the Bush Legacy. Lanham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

 

_______. 2003b. Media Spectacle. New York: Routledge.

 

_______.  1995. Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern. London and New York: Routledge.

 

_______. 1989. Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity. Cambridge and Baltimore: Polity Press and Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

_______. 1984. Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

_______. 1973. Heidegger’s Concept of Authenticity. Doctoral Dissertation, New York: Columbia University.

 

Kerr, Clark. 1963. The Uses of the University. New York: Harper & Row.

 

Korten, David C. 1995. When Corporations Rule the World. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

 

Marcuse, Herbert. [1968] 2009a. “Lecture on Education, Brooklyn College, 1968” in Douglas Kellner, Tyson Lewis, Clayton Pierce, K. Daniel Cho. 2009. Marcuse’s Challenge to Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

_______. [1975] 2009b. “Lecture on Higher Education and Politics, Berkeley, 1975” in Douglas Kellner, Tyson Lewis, Clayton Pierce, K. Daniel Cho. 2009. Marcuse’s Challenge to Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

_______. [1933] 1998. “33 Theses” in Douglas Kellner, Herbert Marcuse: Technology, War, and Fascism Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume I. London and New York: Routledge.

 

_______. 1978. The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics. Boston: Beacon Press.

 

_______. 1975. Untitled lecture with note in Marcuse’s hand “Berkeley, Oct 18 ’75;” logged under the title “Students, University and Education” in the Frankfurt Marcuse Archive (Stadt-und Universitätsbibliothek), manuscript #0503.02.

 

_______. 1972. Counterrevolution and Revolt. Boston: Beacon Press.

 

_______. 1969a. An Essay On Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.

 

_______. 1969b. “The Relevance of Reality” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association. 1968-69.

 

_______. 1969c. “Repressive Tolerance,” in Robert Paul Wolff, Barington Moore Jr., and Herbert Marcuse (eds.) A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Boston: Beacon, 1969.

 

_______. 1968. “Education and Social Change” outline to lecture in the Frankfurt  Marcuse Archive (Stadt-und Universitätsbibliothek), manuscript #0343.01.

 

_______. 1964. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

 

_______. [1958] 1961. Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis. New York: Vintage.

 

_______. [1955] 1966. Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston: Beacon Press.

 

________.  [1937] 1968. “The Affirmative Character of Culture” in Negations: Essays in Critical Theory. Boston: Beacon Press.

 

McLaren, Peter and Ramin Farahmandpur. 2005a. Teaching Against Global Capitalism and the New Imperialism. Lanham, MA: Roman & Littlefield.

 

McLaren, Peter. 2005b. Capitalists & Conquerors: A Critical Pedagogy Against Empire. Lanham, MA: Roman & Littlefield. 

 

________.  2000. Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Pedagogy of Revolution. Lanham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

 

________. 1997. Revolutionary Multiculturalism: Pedagogies of Dissent for the New Millennium. Boulder: Westview Press, a Division of HarperCollins.

 

________. 1995. Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture. London and New York: Routledge.

 

Moore, Michael. 2001. Stupid White Men. New York: HarperCollins.

Offe, Claus. 1988. “Technology and One-Dimensionality” in Robert Pippin, Andrew Feenberg, Charles P. Webel & Contributors (eds),  Marcuse: Critical Theory and the Promise of Utopia. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

 

Plato. Republic. 1937. Vol. 1, The Dialogues of Plato translated into English by B. Jowett, M.A. in Two Volumes. New York: Random House.

 

Reitz, Charles, Frank Baron and David N. Smith (eds.). 2005. Authority, Culture, and Communication: The Sociology of Ernest Manheim. Heidelberg: Synchron.

 

Reitz, Charles. 2009a. “Herbert Marcuse and the Humanities: Emancipatory Education and Predatory Culture,” in Douglas Kellner, Tyson Lewis, Clayton Pierce, K. Daniel Cho. 2009. Marcuse’s Challenge to Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

_______. 2009b. “Herbert Marcuse and the New Culture Wars,” in Douglas Kellner, Tyson Lewis, Clayton Pierce, K. Daniel Cho. 2009. Marcuse’s Challenge to Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

_______. 2009c. “Horace Greeley, Karl Marx, and German 48ers: Anti-Racism in the Kansas Free State Struggle, 1854-64,” Marx-Engels Jahrbuch 2008. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

 

_______.  2004. “Teaching About Oppression and Exploitation: Critical Theory and the Origins of Inequality,” Cultural Logic: An Electronic Journal of Marxist Theory and Practice. http://eserver.org/clogic/2004/reitz.html

 

_______. 2002. “Elements of EduAction: Critical Pedagogy and the Community College,” in The Freirean Legacy: Educating for Social Justice. New York, Bern, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 198-206.

 

_______. 2000a. Art, Alienation, and the Humanities. A Critical Engagement with Herbert Marcuse. Albany: SUNY Press.

 

_______. 2000b. “Herbert Marcuse, Technology, War and Fascism: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Vol. I; Feindanalysen: Über die Deutschen,” in New Political Science, V. 22, N. 3, September, pp. 434-37.

 

_______.  2000c. “Liberating the Critical in Critical Theory: Marcuse, Marx, and a Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” in Stanley F. Steiner, H. Mark Krank, Peter McLaren, and Robert Bahruth (eds.) Freirean Pedagogy: Praxis and Possibilities.  London: Falmer Press, pp. 41-66.

 

________. 1984. “Capitalism, Racism, and the Schools: Understanding Demographic Data and Educational Change in Buffalo, New York (1930-1977),” Urban Education, V. 18, N. 4., January, pp. 490-502.

 

_______. 1981. “Education and Communist Theory: Social Foundations of Justice, Intelligence, and Progress,” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, V. 8. N. 2, Spring-Summer, pp. 110-28.

 

________. 1976. “Imperialist Rivalry and Industrial Education,” Insurgent Sociologist, V. 4, N. 4, Summer, pp. 5-13.

 

Schwartz, Egon. 1992. Keine Zeit für Eichendorff. Frankfurt: Büchergilder Gutenberg.

 

Sernau, Scott. 2001. Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a New Century. Thousand Oaks CA, London, New Delhi: Pine Forge Press.



[1] Although a noticeable “Marcuse Renaissance” has been underway since at least the 1990s as Douglas Kellner points out in John Bokina and Timothy J. Lukes (eds.), MARCUSE: From the New Left to the Next Left (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1994) pp. 245-67, there is, still substantially unrecognized, a theory of emancipatory education in Marcuse’s writings. Recent contributions of my own (Reitz 2000, 2009a, 2009b) and those of Douglas Kellner, K. Daniel Cho, Tyson E. Lewis, and Clayton Pierce (2009a, 2009b) are breaking new ground with regard to this aspect of Marcuse’s philosophy.

I am much obliged to Douglas Kellner for his insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this essay.

[2] The promise of bliss, good fortune, success.

[3] Multicultural education reform has taken several different forms. James A. Banks (1988, 1997) explicates four political reform dimensions as: 1. the contributions approach (food, fiestas, heros, holidays); 2. the additive approach (still views ethnic content from the perspective of monocultural historiography as contrinutions to mainstream culture); 3. the transformative approach (dialectical historiography that stresses complexities of historical conflicts and class, race and gender oppression); 4. the decision-making and social action approach (students struggle for social justice). Marcuse’s (2009a [1968], 1969a) educational theory stresses 3. and 4. McLaren (1997) terms his version of 4. “revolutionary multiculturalism.”

 

[4] See Scott Sernau, Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a New Century (Thousand Oaks CA, London, New Delhi: Pine Forge Press, 2001) pp. 52-55.

[5] “The root of the controversy is the pluralists’ complaint that the association has failed to represent the full range of philosophical interests being pursued in American universities. Instead, they say, the association's leadership and programs presented at its annual meetings have been dominated by representatives of a single school of philosophical thought, which they term the 'analytic' tradition.” Janet Hook, “‘Analytic’ vs. ‘Pluralist’ Debate Splits Philosophical Association,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 12, 1981, p. 3, and Janet Hook, “Association Officer Calls for ‘Recovery of Philosophy,’” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 1982, p. 8; see also Richard Bernstein, “Philosophical Rift: A Tale of Two Approaches” New York Times, December 29, 1987, p. A1.

 

Comments