Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Critique of Pure Tolerance/: Robert Paul Wolff Barrington Moore, Jr. Herbert Marcuse
A Critique of Pure Tolerance/: Robert Paul Wolff Barrington Moore, Jr. Herbert Marcuse
PURE· TOLERANCE/ f
HERBERT MARCUSE
BY HERBERT MARCUSE
th~y did not make the transition from word to it is rather the individual as a human being who is
deed, from speech to action. capable of being free with the others. And the
Relying on the effective background limita- problem of making possible such a harmony be-
tions imposed by its class structure, the society tween every individual liberty and the other is
seemed to practice general tolerance. But liber- not that of finding a compromise between com-
alist theory had already placed an important con- petitors, or between freedom and law, between
dition on tolerance: it was "to apply only to general and individual interest, common and pri-
human beings in the maturity of their fadilties." vate welfare in an established society, but of
John Stuart Mill does not only speak of children creating the society in which man is no lemger
and minors; he elaborates: "Liberty, as a princi- enslaved by institutions which vitiate self-deter-
ple, has no application t-o any state of things mination from the beginning. In other words,
anterior to the time when mankind have become freedom is still to be created even for the freest
capable of being improved by free and equal of the existing societies. And the direction in
discussion." Anterior to that time, men may which it must he sought, and the institutional
still be barbarians, and "despotism is a legitimate and cultural changes which may help to attain
mode of government in dealing with barbarians, the goal are, at least in developed civilization,
provided the end be their improvement, and the comprehensible, that is to say, they can be iden-
means justified by actually effecting that end." tified and projected, on the basis of experience,
Mill's often-quoted words have a less familiar by human reason.
implication on which their meaning depends: In the interplay of theory and practice, true
the internal connection between liberty arlH and false solutions become distinguishable-
truth. There is a sense in which truth is the end never with the evidence of necessity, never as
of liberty, and liberty must be defined and con- the positive, only with the certainty of a rea-
fined by truth. Now in what sense can liberty soned and reasonable chance, and with the per-
be for the sake of truth? Liberty is self-deter- suasive force of the negative. For the true posi-
mination, autonomy-this is almost a tautology, tive is the society of the future and therefore
but a tautology which results from a whole series beyond definition and determination, while the
of synthetic judgments. It stipulates the ability existing positive is that which must be surmount-
to determine one's own life: to be able to deter- ed. But the experience and understanding of the
mine what to do and what not to do, what to existent society may well be capable of identify-
suffer and what not. But the subject of this au- ing what is not conducive to a free and rational
tonomy is never the contingent, private individ- society, what impedes and distorts the possibili-
ual as that which he actually is or happens to be; ties of its creation. Freedom is liberation, a spe-
88 Repressive Tolera12ce Herbert Marcuse 89
cific historical process .in theory and practice, lished reality is swallowed up. However, censor-
and as such it has its right and wrong, its truth ship of art and literature is regressive under all
and falsehood. circumstances. The authentic oeuvre is not and
The uncertainty of chance in this distinction cannot be a prop of oppression, and pseudo-art
does not cancel the historical objectivity, but it ... (which can be such a prop) is not art. Art stands
necessitates freedom of thought and expression against history, withstands history which has
as preconditions of finding the way to freedom- been the history of oppression, for art subjects
it necessitates tolerance. However, th:-,·tolerance reality to laws other than the established ones: to
cannot be indiscriminate and equal ~th respect the laws of the Form which creates a different
to the contents of expression, neither in word reality-negation of the established one even
nor in deed; it cannot prt>tect false words and where art depicts the established reality. But in
wrong deeds which demonstrate that they con- its struggle with history, art subjects itself to
tradict and counteract the possibilities of libera- history: history enters the definition of art and
tion. Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in ent~rs into the distinction between art and
harmless debates, in conversation, in academic pseudo-art. Thus it happens that what was once
discussion; it is indispensable in the scientific en- art becomes pseudo-art. Previous forms, styles,
terprise, in private religion. But society cannot and qualities, previous modes of protest and re-
be indiscriminate where the pacification of exist- fusal cannot be recaptured in or against a differ-
ence, where freedom and happiness themselves ent society. There are cases where an authentic
are at stake: here, certain things cannot be said, oeuvre carries a regressive political message-
certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies Dostoevski is a case in point. But then, the mes-
cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be sage is canceled by the oeuvre itself: the regres-
permitted without making tolerance an instru- sive political content is absorbed, aufgehoben in
ment for the continuation of servitude.
The danger of "destructive tolerance" (Bau- I\
the artistic form: in the work as literature.
Tolerance of free speech is the way of im-
delaire), of "benevolent neutrality" toward art provement, of progr.ess in liberation, not because
has been recognized: the market, which absorbs ( there is no objective truth, and improvement
'f
1
equally well (although with often quite sudden must necessarily be a compromise between a
fluctuations) art, anti-art, and non-art, all possi- variety of opinions, -~~~re~lLQ~.:_ <;;~-
ble conflicting styles, schools, forms, provides a
"complacent receptacle, a friendly abyss" (Ed- l j!!~-~!Ll!!~IL~hi£!L.-CEJ:!l be .discovered, ascer-
tained only in learning a;;:~r<:;;;Tipreh~i'iding that
gar Wind, Art and Anarchy (New York:
Knopf, 1964), p. 101) in which the radical im-
pact of art, the protest of art against the estab- l which is and that which can be and ought to be
done for the sake of improving the lot of man-
kind. This common,and historical "ought" is not
90 Repressive Tole.~'lnce Herbert Marcuse 91
immediately evident, at hand: it has to be un- geons and at the stake: that of Arnold of Brescia,
covered by "cutting through," "splitting," of Fra Dolcino, of Savonarola, of the Albigensi-
"breaking asunder"· ( dis-cutio) t'he giveh materi- ans, Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites. Toler-
al-separating right and wrong, good and bad, ance is first and foremost for the sake ~e
y--~-~'~""'"~--'"''""'~~-~~~-=--~---~~>---Y-'-'-">-~--~--~...._-~.,_-~. ~
correct and incorrect. The subject whose "im- heretics-the historical road toward humanttas
provement" depends on a progressive historical ;qlpeais~ as heresy: target of persecution by the
practice is each man as man, and this universality powers that be. Heresy by itself, however, is no
is reflected in that of the discussion, which a token of truth.
priori does not exclude any group or individual. The criterion of progress in freedom accord-
But even the all-inclusive character of liberalist ing to which Mill judges these movements is the
tolerance was, at least in theory, based on the Reformation. The evaluation is ex post, and his
proposition that men were (potential) individu- list includ'es opposites (Savonarola too would
als who could learn to hear and see and feel by have burned Fra Dolcino). Even the ex post
themselves, to develop their own thoughts, to evaluation is contestable as to its truth: history
grasp their trite interests and rights and capabili- corrects the judgment-too late. The correction
ties, also agains,£_esta~lished auth()~i!L~n- does not help the victims and does not absolve
r"- i.QQ:. This was the rationale of free. speech and as- their executioners. However, the lesson is clear:
sembly. !Jniver~Lt:~_leration bec?Il1es q~estion i,m:olerance has delayed progress and has ~a
no
able when its rationale.. longer p~ey~ils,~fien longed the..slaughter and torture of innocents for \
foleranceis.a<llliiiii'srerea to~~dandJn- h~nd~~~-gf_years. Does this clinch the case for)
42££!1i~ited 125!Iii4~alswho parrot~ a_~i.~~~n, indiscriminate, "E!!rt;" tolera!!ce? Are there his- 1r6
th~.2Pil}~()l!.<>tlh~I~:~!l~.t~~"f,Tor whom heterono- torical conditions in which ~h toleration i,w.:-\
my has become autonomy. -.}:!edes liberatiQ.Q. and multiplies the victims who \
The telos of tolerance is truth. It is clear from are sacrificed to the status quo? .,Can the indis- (
the historical record that the ~~thentic spokes- .cr~ranty of political rights and li~r
men of tolerance had more and other truth in ..ties be r~ressive? Can such tolerance serve to
j!jL~fiilan th;;· o{ p;~P;;(i~~;;t-iogi~";~rl··;~~- contain quaiTtatlve social change?
demic theory. John. Stuart Mill speaks of the I shall discuss this question only with refer- ~
truth which is persecuted in history and which ence to political movements, attitudes, schools. of
does not triumph over persecution by virtue of thought, philosophies which are "p.Qliti~~l" in
its "inherent power," which in fact has no inher- the widest sense-affecting the societJ·asa-whole,
ent power "against the dungeon and the stake." demonstrably transc~ndin_g_tb,e_.sphere of priva-
' And he enumerates the "truths" which were , cy. Moreover, I propose a shift in the focus of
cruelly and successfully liquidated in the dun- the discussion: it will be concerned not only, and
I
92 Repressive Tolerance I Herbert Marcuse 93
Il
not primarily, with tolerance toward radical ex- l Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise
tremes, minorities, subversives, etc., but rather I hidden in this assumption: free and e~al discus-·-\
with tolerance toward rna· orities, toward official s\mtcan fulfill the functionattnbmed to""1i"only (
~:ul<:Lp!!.!?lk__Q~~-~~I<!..!h_~-~l!tlu.s~ ecCpro- iLitJs nifiqn_ai~~~i5,§!21!~~~~-~~~~~!()£~erit of ·
_!_~£.t.<:>E~_<:>f_f!"~~p?m. In this case, the discussion il.l_<!~p~Q~:}_~gLthi~~· indoctri~Iion, ?
free from
can have. as a frame of reference only a demo- ?u-thorliy:--rlie.
ma!!!E~!-~!i<:>!l-'--~~E~ne~us notion ~-
cratic society, in which the people, as individuals of Fil!!;t_li~lJ1and counte!VaiTliig)owers isnosub-
and as members of political and other organiza- stitute for this requirement. One might in theory
tions, participate in the making, sustaining, and construct a state in which a multitude of differ-
changing policies. In an authoritarian system, the ent pressures, interests, and authorities balance
people do not tolerate-they suffer established each other out and result in a truly general and
policies. rational interest. However, such a construct bad-
Under a system of constitutionally guaranteed ly fits a society in which powers are and remain
and (generally and without too many and too unequal and even increase their unequal weight
glaring exceptions) practiced civil rights and when they run their own course. It fits even
liberties, o~sition and dissent are tol~n worse when the variety of pressures unifies and
tess they_ issue in vio~nce and/or in exhortation coagulates into an overwhelming whole, inte-
t~l!~.T~ization of violent subversion. The grating the particular countervailing powers by
underlying assumption is that the establisfied so- virtue of an increasing standard of living and an
ciety is free, and that any improvement, even a increasing concentration of power. Then, the
change in the social structure and social values, laborer, whose real ·interest conflicts with that
would come about in the normal course of of management, .the common consumer whose
events, prepared, defined, and tested in free and real interest conflicts with that of the producer,
equal discussion, on the open marketplace of the intellectual whose vocation conflicts with
ideas and goods.* Now in recalling John Stuart that of his employer find themselves submitting
to a system against which they are powerless and
* I wish to reiterate for the following discussion that,
de facto, tolerance is not indiscriminate and "pure" even appear unreasonable. The ideas of the available
in the most democratic society. The "background limita- alternatives evaporates into an utterly utopian
tions" stated on page 85 restrict tolerance before it be- dimension in which it is at home, for a free so-
gins to operate. The antagonistic structure of society ciety ·is indeed unrealistically and undefinably
rigs the rules of the game. Those who stand against the
different from the existing ones. Under these
established system are a priori at a disadvantage, which
is not removed by the toleration of their ideas, speeches, circumstances, whatever improvement may oc-
and newspapers. cur "in the normal course of events" and with-
94 Repressi'l./e Tolerance Herbert Marcuse 95
out subversion is likely to be improvement in that the democratic argument implies a necessary
. ;~;:~-direction dete!:mined by the ~icular in~~r condition, namely, that the people must be capa-
-."";;::::c>ests which control the whole. ble of deli.berating and choosing on the basis of
·-By -the same token,-those. ~inoriti~s which knowledge, that th~_ m~~~.J2ave acce~s to _~m
strive for a change of the whole Itself will, under thentic information; and that, on this basis, their
optimal conditions which rarely prevail, be left ~~~luatiori·····must: oe··me-:result--or ·a:monomous
free to deliberate and discuss, to speak and to ti}Q~ght: - . . ·
assemble-and will be left harmless and helpless Iri the contemporary ·period, the· democratic
in the face of the overwhelming majority, which argument for abstract tolerance tends to be in-
militates against qualitative social change. This validated by the invalidation of the democratic
/majority is firmly grounded in t~e increasing process itself. The liberating force of democracy
satisfaction of needs, and technological and men- was the chance it gave to effective dissent, on the
tal coordination, which testify to the general individual as well as social scale, its openness to
helplessness of radical groups in a well-function- qualitatively different forms of government, of
ing social system. culture, education, work-of the human exist-
Within the affluent democracy, the affluent ence in general. The toleration of free discussion
discussion prevails, and within the established and the equal right of opposites was to define
framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All and clarify the different forms of dissent: their
points of view can be heard: the ~ommunist a?d direction, content, prospect. 13_ut with_!.ll~-f£~
the Fascist, the Left and the Rtght, the whtte centrati.Q!L~i.~~?.E_9~ic and political power and
and the Negro, the crusaders for armament and -~-i.!l.~~g'E_~!ion of opposites in a societ~lch
for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly drag- uses technology as an mstrume~nati(Yn,
ging debates over the media, the stup~d op~nion effective dissentlsbl0c~11Cfe it coUIOfreely
is treated with the same respect as the mtelhgent ~mer~ in._!;he formation of opinior;. it;!_~~a
one, the misinformed may talk as long as the in- tiQ.uand. commun_JS~.._m_sp~i.!;handassemDfy.
formed, and propaganda rides along with edu- Under the rule of monopolistic media-them-
cation, truth with falsehood. Tilis.J~!!~ra selves the mere instruments of economic and po-
.tiQ..Il..Of sense !!ruL!!onsense is justi~ed by ~e litical power-a mentality is created for which
democratic argument that nobody, neither group right and wrong, true and false are predefined
~ocindividual, is in ~o~ssig_n of the truth and wherever they affect the vital interests of the so-
~ore--ofahnm what is ri ht ~nd ~r~, ciety. This· is, prior to all expression and com-
~oo2_~nd_bad: There~?re, all con~estm~ opn~tons munication, a matter of semantics: the blocking
must be submitted to the people for Its dehber-. of effective dissent, of the recognition of that
ation and choice. But .e::·
I have already suggested ~his;;__b_j~_!!Q.~--~f the Establlslll:nem-whlclioegms
c;: - - - - - - -•.._--~......_,._,_,.. _________ ,___.~<-·~-__...._. __~-----
Repressive Tolerance Herbert Marcuse 97
96
tion of dpposites (even where it is really equal)
2_~--~~-:_}~_~g~~g~--~!!~!- is publicized ~~~-:l_~!!li~~s
tere~~ The meaning of wOrdsisrigidly stabilized. easily lose their liberating force as factors of un-
Rational persuasion, persuasion to the opposite is derstanding and learning; they are far more
all but precluded. The avenues of entrance are likely to strengthen the established thesis and to
dosed to the meaning of words and ideas other repel the alternatives.
than the established one-established by the pub- Impartiality to the utmost, equal treatment of
licity of the powers that be, a.nd verified in their competing and conflicting issues is indeed a basic
practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, requirement for decision-making in the demo-
other ideas can be expressed, but, at the massive cratic process-it is an equally basic requirement
scale of the conservative majority (outside such for defining the limits of tolerance. But in a de-
enclaves as the intelligentsia), they are immedi- ~~cracy with totalitarian organization, ()!>}<!~
ately "evaluated" (i.e. automatically understood) tivity m::ty_fulfill a very different function, name-
-~------·-
in terms of the public language-a language 1y, t()Joster a mental attitude which tends to ob-
which determines "a priori" the direction in liter.~t~~th~ --··----~-~~---
ditre:renceoaween-·irue·ani:rialse '
which the thought process moves. Thus the inJormatiorr~nd inQ.()_£tr1n~Ion;nglitandwnmg.
process of reflection ends where it started: in In fact,. the -~e~ision betweenoppose<roplllions
the given conditions and relations. Self-validat- has been made before the presentation and dis-
ing, the argument of the discussion repels the cussion get under way-made, not by a conspir-
contradiction because the antithesis is redefined acy or a sponsor or a publisher, not by any dic-
in terms of the thesis. For example, thesis: we tatorship, ~-_!ather by the '~110!!!la!_course of
work for peace; antithesis: we prepare for war ~events," which is the course of admiru5tered
·-·---·~-- .
(or even: we wage war) ; unification of oppti>- events, ~~-~-~~l. the mentality shaped in.......... this
.
---~-~~-·----··-·--·---c·-·-·----·
sites: preparing for war is working for peace. .£__our~e. H ere, too, It Is the whole wnich deter-
Peace is redefined as necessarily, in the prevail- mines the truth. Then the decision asserts itself
ing situation, including preparation for war (or without any open violation of objectivity, in'
even war) and in this Orwellian form, the mean- such things as the make-up of a newspaper (with
ing of the word "peace" is stabilized. Thus, the the breaking up of vital information into bits
basic vocabulary of the Orwellian language op- interspersed between extraneous material, irrele-
erates as a priori categories of understanding: vant items, rele ating. of some radically negative
preforming all content. ~e conditions invali- .n~:w..~tQ. .~l1()___~~~~J~-~-~~e , in t e JUX~TtiOn of
da~__t_!le.-}Qgic of tolerance ;}Ucfi involves the gorg_@us _!!.!is :with _1!!!fllit_~~~fl__ horrors~--~ii-The
rational development of me~n~~_gg_pr~_c;ludes lt~trq9!!.<:~an<l intermR!i.9JL<:>.fi!i~~hro~dcast
the_£J9ii_f.i:g_()_(meaninf--Consequently, persua- .
.iitg of t~~§ !>Y..9-~~~h~!!'i!![£.~~:_~C1a1s:·Tiie
sion through discussion and the equal presenta- result Is a "!!!!:!!!!.!!.~JJ:..On of opposites, aneutrali-
----·-.. ...... .
--~"""-~---·---·~-'-··-'" -~
98 Repressive Tolerance Herbert Marcuse 99
zation, however, which takes place on the firm
grounds of the structural limitation of tolerance
and 'Y~E:~~~ P..E~(<;>!!!!~~-m~n.tality. When a mag-
azine prints side by side a negative and a positive
society, ~~uld have to be freed from t~e
erevailing indoctrinatiop. ( ~h.-~~---~-t1.?-.}(.)~g:r
recQggi_~_<:!_ as-~?~£t.~!Ila._~on). But thts means
that the trend would have to be reversed: they
*
report on the FBI, it fulfills honestly the require- would have to get information slanted in the op-
ments of objectivity: hQl\"ev~~!~-~~~!:1.<::.~~- a~e posite direction. For the facts are never given
th~!E~~-P2~!tiv~--~in~_~ec_a~-~:_!E.~-~~f the immediately and never accessible immediately;
if1sEit~~i?E}~-~::p}y__t:~_g:raved in the mind of the they are.established, "mediated" by those who
people. Or, if a newscaster reports tne··eorture made them; the truth, "the whole truth" sur-
. and murder of civil rights workers in the same passes these facts and requires the rupture with
'; unem_otional tone he uses t. o describe the stock- their appearance. This rupture-prerequisite and
( market or the weather, or with the same great token of all freedom of thought and of speech-
emotion with which he says his commercials, cannot .be accomplished within the established
then silch objectivity is spurious-more, it of- framework of abstract tolerance and spurious ob-
~ \ . . f~ins!__hm!!~tl!U':..~!:J.d tru_ili_Qy__~-~~fm je·c·tivity.... b. ecause these are precisely t.h. e. f·a·c· t.ors /
I'J{:l
"'!
where one should be enraged, by refraining from
----------··--·-·----·······-----------------------~-----------·-····-·-·--
~hish_precondition the mind against t~e~pt\1~~:__/
\ ac:~~~~~~~ ~~:E~-~<:SE.~~ti~f1..!~. in_!~:.fa<;_t~.!~~m-
>",.."" selves. '(!le tolerance expressed in such i~ar- The factual barriers which totalitarian de-
7 d~Iiti~:i.~~~?--~-;:}!~~~~-~f~-~-e~-absolve pre- mocracy erects against the efficacy of qualitative
vaili_gg intolerance and s~pp_t:t;!s_si2.!i~-Hobjecti':i dissent are weak and pleasant enough compared
ty has anything to do with t~h, ~f truth is with the practices of a dictatorship which claims
more than a matter of logic and science, then this to educate the people in the truth. ~ith....alLits
kind of objectivity is false, and this kind of toler- limitations and distortions, democratic tolerance
ance inhuman. And if it is necessary to break the ~;;d~;ii~i;~ilmstai:i"ces--morehumaiiethan an
established universe of meaning (and the prac- -i~;ti~t~n;lizetfllitoleraiice--wliich sacrifices the
tice enclosed in this universe) in order to enable E&11rsat1<f11bertiesofili~:_lly!~[[e~~rati(}~s for
man to find out what is true and false, this de- Jh~~~a~e ·()ffuture- generations. '{he question is
----~------ ~-...-...
~tive impartiality woul~ye !2.Q~~~~~oned. ~~ onl~ve. I shall pres-
The people exposed to this impartiality are no efltfy try to siiggesttlleairection in which an
tabulae rasae, they are indoctrinated bythe con- answer may be sought. In any case, the contrast
ditions under which they live and think and is not between democracy in the abstract and
which they do not transcend. To enable them to dictatorship in the abstract.
become autonomous, to find by themselves what Democracy is a form of government which fits
is true and what is false for ~an in the existing very different types of society( this holds true
100 Repressive Tolerance Herbert Marcuse 101
even for a democracy with universal suffrage to enclose the_mind-w.ithirr-the-esta-b.lished uni- y,;;,"'""
and equality before the law), and the human _
y;-~ gf~fO"QfSe and behavior-thereby.pre- ~F1
costs of a democracy are always and everywhere ~!l1_?ing a priori a rational evaluation_gft_h_(! al-
those exacted by the society whose government .• ~~E~~1iy~::A·na rot:ne·aeg:reero~whi~h freedom
it is. Their range extends all the way from nor- of thought involves the struggle against inhu-
mal exploitation, poverty, and insecurity to the manity, restoration of such freedom would also
victims of wars, police actions, military aid, etc., imp~y: ,intolerance toward scienti~h in
in which the society is engaged-and not only to
the victims within its own frontiers. These con-
---
the mt~a~ts," of abnonnal
----------~~~·····--· -~-::---..
human endurance unacrinhuman conditions,
siderations can never justify the exacting of dif- etc. I shall presently discuss the question as to
ferent sacrifices and different victims on behalf ~j~-~c!_e on the dist}!!~Y2.!l.~~~~~~-lib
of a future better society, but they do allow e~~- and repressive, ~~--~!!-~_jnhuman
weighing the costs involved in the perpetuation !.~:~~~g~~nd practices; I have already suggested
of an existing society against the risk of promot- th~t-~!!i.~~§tirict¥is ~~!_~Iri~f~~~~?!~~~!l1.~Tref-
ing alternatives which offer a reasonable chance ~r~n~~-hill.9L!1l!!gn.alcriteria. -
of pacification and liberation. Surely, no gov- While the reversal of the trend in the educa-
ernment can be expected to foster its own sub- tional enterprise at least could conceivably be
version, but in a democracy such a right is vested enforced by the students and teachers them-
in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). selves, and thus be self-imposed, the systematic
This means that the ways should not be blocked withdrawal of tolerance toward regressive and
on__~hi~l!...~,!!bv-;-rsive majority-col.II~f'd~;:~iop, repressive opinions and movements could only
and if they are blocked by organized represSion be envisaged as results of large-scale pressure
and indoc~rination 1_their reoE_~nlQg__!!!~Y~~j_re which would amount to an upheaval. In other
~-~El~arently_\Lndemocratic mean_s. They would in- words, it would er~~J?E.<?J>.~__!h_at"-Yhkb.i~_giJLto
- elude the withdrawal of toleration of speech and . be .l!~£Q!!!~li~h.~_;_t~ersal of the trend. How-
assembly from groups and movements which ever, resistance at particlliaf'occas·ions, ·boycott,
promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvin- non-participation at the local and small-group
!!
ism, discrimination on the grounds of race and
religion, or which oppo.se the extension of public
services, social security, medical care, etc. More-
over, t~tion of £teedOIILDiJ:hmlg:ht.may
level may perhaps prepare the ground. The sub-
versive character of the restoration of freedom
appears most clearly in that dimension of society
where false tolerance and free enterprise do per-
~-~gid--restr~_QgJ;~.ach haps the most serious and lasting damage, name-
ings.._and practi~ the educational institutions ly, in business and publicity. Against the em-
"YE~-~Y~~ v:_l):'._!!!~hod~_anfi_£Q!1~..epts~~- phatic-msisfence-orrlhepart of spokesmen for
102 Repressive Tolerance \ Herbert Marcuse 103
labor, I maintain that practices such as planned There,_ passive resistance was carried through on
obsolescence, collusion between union leaders}lip a ma_ssiVe scale,. which disrupted, or threatened
and management, slanted publicity are not sim- to dis~upt, the. economic life of the country.
ply imposed from above on a powerless rank and <?uantlt_Y turns _mto quality: o.n.~ ~ scale, pas- .??
file, but are tolerated by them-and by the con- .§IV~~~~~tan~~~ ~SSIVe-It C~ t0_3 ~ "
sumer at large. However, it would be ridiculous _be.n~~~vi?JCnt. The same holds true for the Gen-
to speak of a possible withdrawal of tolerance eral Strike.) Robespierre's distinction between
with respect to these practices and to the ide- the te:ror of liberty and the.terror of despotism,
ologies promoted by them. For they pertain to and his moral glorification of the former belongs
the basis on which the repressive affluent society t? the most convincingly condemned aberra-
rests and reproduces itself and its vital defenses tiOn~, even if the white terror was more bloody
-their removal would be that total revolution ~han the red terror. The comparative evaluation
which this society so effectively repels. m .terms of the number of victims is the quanti-
To discuss tolerance in such a society means fymg approach which reveals the man-made hor-
to re-examine the issue of violence and the tra- ror throughout history that made violence a
ditional distinction between violent and non- necessity. In terms of historical function there is
violent action. The discussion should not, from a diff~rence between revolutionary and ;eaction-
the beginning, be clouded by ideologies which ary vwlence, between violence practiced by the
serve the perpetuation of violence. Even in the oppressed and by the oppressors. In terms of
advanced centers of civilization, violence actual- ethics, both forms of violence are inhuman and
ly prevails: it is practiced by the police, in the evil-but' since when is history made in accord-
prisons and mental institutions, in the fight ance with ethical standards? To start applying
against racial minorities; it is carried, by the de- the~ at the point where the oppressed rebel
fenders of metropolitan freedom, into the back- agams~ the o.Ppressors, the have-nots against the
ward countries. This violence indeed breeds vio- haves Is. servmg the cause of actual violence by
lence. But to refrain from violence in the face of weakenmg the protest against it.
vastly superior violence is one thing, to renounce
a priori violence against violence, on ethical or Comprenez enfin ceci: si la violence a com-
psychological grounds (because it may atago- ~enc~ ce ~oir, .si !'exploitation ni !'oppression
nize sympathizers) is another. Non-violence is n_ont pmais_ ex~ste sur ter~e, peut-etre la non-
normally not only preached to but exacted from viOlence affiichee peut apaiser la querelle. Mais
the weak-it is a necessity rather than a virtue, si. le regime tout entier et jusqu'a vos non-
and normally it d(jes not seriously harm the case vwlent~s pen~e~s s?nt condi~ionnees par une
of the strong. (Is the case of India an exception? oppresswn mlllenaire, votre passivite ne sert
104 Repressive Tolerance
Herbert Marcuse
105
qu'a vous ranger du cote des oppresseurs.
(Sartre, Preface to Frantz Fanon, Les Damnes also ap~lies to democracy. The only authentic
de la Terre, Paris: Maspero, 1961, p. 22). alternative and negation of dictatorship (with
resfect to this question) would be a society in
The very notion of false tolerance, and the dis- whtch "the people" have become autonomous in-
tinction between right and wrong limitations on dividuals, freed from the repressive requirements
tolerance, between progressive and regressive ?f a. struggle for existence in the interest of dom-
indoctrination, revolutionary and reactionary matton, and as such human beings choosing their
violence demand the statement of criteria for its go~ernment and determining their life. Such a
validity. These standards must be prior to what- s?ctety does not yet exist anywhere. In the mean-
ever constitutional and legal criteria are set up time, the question must be treated in abstracto-
and applied in an existing society (such as "clear abstraction, not from the historical possibilities,
and present danger," and other established defini- but from the realities of the prevailing societies.
tions of civil rights and liberties), for such defi- I suggested that the distinction between true
nitions themselves presuppose standards of free- a.nd false tolerance, between progress and regres-
dom and repression as applicable or not applica- Sion can be made rationally on empirical
ble in the .I"espective society: they are specifica- grounds. The real possibilities of human freedom
tions of triore general concepts. By whom, and are relative to the attained stage of civilization.
according to what standards, can the political They depend on the material and intellectual re-
distinction between true and false, progressive sources a~ailable at the respective stage, and they
and regressive (for in this sphere, these pairs are are quantifiable and calculable to a high degree.
equivalent) be made and its validity be justified? So are, at the stage of advanced industrial socie-
At the outset, I propose that the question cannot ty, the most .ra~ion~l ways of using these re.,
be answered in terms of the alternative between so~r~es and dtstnbutmg the social product with
democracy and dictatorship, according to which, pnonty on the satisfaction of vital needs and
in the latter, one individual or group, without with a ~i~mum. of toil and injustice. In other
any effective control from below, arrogate to words, It 1s posstble to define the direction in
themselves the decision. Historically, even in the which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions
most democratic democracies, the vital and final would have to be changed in order to improve
decisions affecting the society as a whole have the chance of a peace which is not identical with
been made, constitutionally or in fact, by one or cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction
several groups without effective control by the of n~eds whi<:h d~es ~ot feed on poverty, op-
people themselves. The ironical question: who pressiO~, and e~plmtat10n. Consequently, it is al-
educates the educators (i.e. the political leaders) so posstbl~ to tdentify policies, opinions, move-
ments whtch would promote this chance, and
106 Repressive Tolerance Herbert Marcuse 107
those which would do the opposite. Suppression of. to.Ierance from regressive movements, and dis-
of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the cnmma~ory tolerance in favor of progressive
strengthening of the progressive ones. tendencies would be tantamount to the "official"
The question, who is qualified to make all promotion of subversion. The historical calculus
these distinctions, definitions, identifications for of progress (which is actually the calculus of the
the society as a whole, has now one logical an- pros~ective reduct~on of cruelty, misery, sup-
swer, namely, everyone "in the maturity of his pression) seems to mvolve the calculated choice
faculties" as a human being, everyone who 4as between two forms of political violence: that on
learned to think rationally and autonomously. the. part. ~f the legally constituted powers (by
The answer to Plato's educational dictatorship their legitimate action, or by their tacit consent,
is the democratic educational dictatorship of free or by their inability to prevent violence), and
men. John Stuart Mill's conception of the res that on the part of potentially subversive move-
publica is not the opposite of Plato's: the liberal me?ts. Moreover, with respect to the latter, a
too demands the authority of Reason not only po~Icy of unequal treatment would protect radi-
as an intellectual but also as a political power. In calism on the·Left against that on the Right. Can
Plato, rationality is confined to the small num- the ~isto.rical.calculus be reasonably extended to
ber of philosopher-kings; in Mill, every rational the JUStificatiOn of one form of violence as
human being participates in the discussion and agai?st another? Or better (since "justification"
decision-but only as a rational being. Where so- carnes a moral connotation), is there historical
ciety has ente.r:ed the phase of total administra- evidence to the effect that the social origin and
tion and indoctrination, this would be a small impetus of violence (from among the ruled or
number indeed, and not necessarily that of the the ruling classes, the have or the have-nots, the
elected representatives of the people. The prob- Left or the Right) isin a demonstrable relation
lemis not that of an educational dictatorship, but to progress (as defined above)?
that of breaking the tyranny of public opinion With all the qualifications of a hypothesis
and its makers in the closed society. based on an "open" historical record it seems
However, granted the empirical rationality of that the violence emanating from the r~bellion of
the distinction between progress and regression, the oppressed classes broke the historical con-
and granted that it may be applicable to toler- ti~uum of injustice, cruelty, and silence for a
ance, and may justify strongly discriminatory bn~f mom~nt, brief but explosive enough to
tolerance on political grounds (cancellation of ~ch~eve an Increase in the scope of freedom and
the .liberal creed of free and equal discussion), JUSt.Ice, and .a better and more equitable distri-
another impossible consequence would follow. I butiOn o~ misery and oppression in a new social
said that, by virtue of its inner logic, withdrawal system-m one word: progress in civilization.
108 Repressive Tolerance Herbert Marcuse 109
The English civil wars, the French Revolution, the revamping of the old order or the emergence
the Chinese and the Cuban Revolutions may of the new.
illustrate the hypothesis. In contrast, the one his- Liberating tolerance, then, would mean in-
torical change from one social system to another, tolerance against movements from the Right,
marking the beginning of a new period in civili- and toleration of movements from the Left. As
zation, which was not sparked and driven by an to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance:
effective .movement "from below," namely, the ... it would extend to the stage of action as well
collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well
brought about a long period of regression for as of word. The traditional criterion of clear. and
long centuries, until a new, higher period of . present danger seems no longer adequate to a
civilization was painfully born in the violence of stage where the whole society is in the situation
the heretic revolts of the thirteenth century and of the theater audience when somebody cries:
in the peasant and laborer revolts of the four- "fire." It is a situation in which the total catastro-
teenth century .1 phy could be triggered off any moment, not on-
With respect to historical violence emanating ly by a technical error, but also by a rational
from among ruling classes, no such relation to miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of
progress seems to obtain. The long series of dy- one of the leaders. In past and different circum-
nastic and imperialist wars, the liquidation of stances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi
Spartacus in Germany in 1919, Fascism and Na- leaders were the immediate prologue to the mas-
zism did not break but rather tightened and sacre. The distance between the propaganda and
streamlined the continuum of suppression. I said the action, between the organization and its re-
emanating "from among ruling classes": to be lease on the pe.ople had become too short. But
sure, there is hardly any organized violence from the spreading of the word could have been
above that does not mobilize and activate mass stopped before it was too late: if democratic
support from below; the decisive question is, on tolerance had been withdrawn when the future
behalf of and in the interest of which groups and leaders started their campaign, . m~nkind would
institutions is such violence released? And the h~y~ h~d.. aJ::b.ance ofavoiding. Auschwitz and' a
answer is not necessarily ex post: in the historical )Yorl<J War. · ··
examples just mentioned, it could be and was The whole post-fascist period is one of clear
anticipated whether the movement would serve and present danger. Consequently,.!!!!~ pacifica-
' In modern times, fascism has been a consequence of .!lQ!!J.:~q.Yires. the. withdrawal oftolerance before
the transition to industrial society without a revolution. .!!Ie l:le~<:J, at the ~tage of communication in word,
See Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship J?!i.~.!L3;11Q. picture~ Such extreme suspension of
and Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966). the right of free speech and free assembly is in-
110 Repressive Tolerance 111
Herbert Marcuse
?eed justified only if the whole of society is basis for universal tolerance. The conditions un-
~n. extreme danger. I maintain that our society
?er which tolerance can again become a liberat-
IS m such an emergency situation, and that it has
mg and humanizing force have still to be created.
become the normal state of affairs. Different When tolerance mainly serves the protection
opinions and "philosophies" can no longer com- and preservation of a repressive society, when it
pe~e peacefully for adherence and persuasion on serves to neutralize opposition and to render
ratiOnal grounds: the "marketplace of ideas" is men immune against other and better forms of
organized and delimited by those who determine life, then tolerance has been perverted. And
the national and the individual interest. In this when this perversion starts in the mind of the
society, for which the ideologists have pro- individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when
claimed the "end of ideology," the false con- heteronomous interests occupy him before he
sciousness has become the general consciousness can experience his servitude, then the efforts to
-from the government down to its last objects. counteract his dehumanization must begin at the
The s~all and powerless minorities which strug- place of entrance, there where the false con-
gle agamst the false consciousness and its bene- sciousness takes form( or rather: is systematically
ficiaries must be helped: their continued exist- formed)-it must begin with stopping the words
ence is more important than the preservation of and images which feed this consciousness. To
a~used rights and liberties which grant constitu- be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship,
t~onal powers to those who oppress these minori-... >
--: but- openly directed against the more or less hid-
ues. It should be evident by now that the exercise .den censorship. that permeate:) the free media.
of civil rights by those who don't have them pre- Wher~ the ~alse consciousness has become prev-
supposes the withdrawal of civil rights from alent m national and popular behavior, it trans:.
· those who prevent their exercise, and that libera- lates itself almost immediately into practice:
tion of the Damned of the Earth presupposes the saf~ distance between ideology and reality,
suppression not only of their old but also of their repressive thought and repressive action, be-
new masters. \ {ween the word of destruction and the deed of
Withdraw~l of tolerance from regressive destruction is dangerously shortened. Thus, the
movements before they can become active; in- b~eak throug~ the false consciousness may pro-
tolerance even toward thought, opinion, and vid~ the Arch1medean point for a larger emanci-
wor~, and fin.ally, intolerance in the opposite di- pation-at an infinitesimally small spot, to be
rection, that IS, toward the self-styled conserva- sure, but it is on the enlargement of such small
tives, to the political Right-these anti-democrat- spots that the chance of change depends,
ic notions respond to the actual development of The forces of emancipation cannot be identi-
the democratic society which has destroyed the fied with any social class which, by virtue of its
Herbert Marcuse 113
112 Repressive Tolerance
?egree to which this development is actually
material condition, is free from false conscious-
Impeded by the sheer weight of a repressive so-
ness. Today, they are hopelessly dispersed
ciety and the necessity of making a living in it,
t?rough~ut the society, and the fighting minori-
repressi~n invades the academic enterprise itself,
ties a~d Isolated; groups are often in opposition .
even prior to all restrictions on academic free-
to their own leadership. In the society at large,'
dom. The pre-empting of the mind vitiates im-
the mental space for denial and reflection must
partiality and objectivity: unless the student
first be recreated. Repulsed by the concreteness
learns to think in the opposite direction, he will
of the administered society, the effort of eman-
be inclined to place the facts into the predomi-
cipation becomes "abstract"; it is reduced to
nans_.framework of values. Scholarship, i.e. the
facilitating the recognition of what is going on
to .freeing language from the tyranny of the Or~
acquisition and communication of knowledge,
prohibits the purification and isolation of facts
wellian syntax and logic, to developing the con-
from the context of the whole truth. An essential
cepts that comprehend reality. More than ever,
pa~t of the latter is recognition of the frightening
the proposition holds true that progress in free-
exteNt to which history was made and recorded
dom demands progress in the consciousness of
by and for the victors, that is, the extent to
freedom. Where the mind has been made into a
which history was the development of oppres-
subject-object of politics and policies, intellectu-
sion .. And this oppfession is in the facts them-
al autonomy, the realm of "pure" thought has
selves which it establishes; thus they themselves
become a matter of political education (or rath-
er: counter-education). I
1\
carry a negative value as part and aspect of their
facticity. To treat the great crusades against hu-
This means that previously neutral, value-free,
manity (like that against the Albigensians) with
formal aspect~ of learning and teaching now be-
the same impartiality as the desperate struggles
come, on thetr own grounds and in their own
for humanity means neutralizing their opposite
right, political: learning to know the facts, the
historical function, reconciling the executioners
whole truth, and to comprehena it is radical c.dt-
with their victims, distorting the record. Such
icism throughout, intellectual subversion. In a
spurious neutrality serves to reproduce accept-
world in which the human faculties and needs
ance of the dominion of the victors in the con-
are arrested or perverted, autonomous thinking
sciousness of man. Here, too, in the education of
leads into a "perverted world": contradiction
those who are not yet maturely integrated, in the
and counter-image of the established world of
mind of the young, the ground for liberating
repression. And this contradiction is not simply
' tolerance is still to be created.
stipulated, is not simply the product of confused
E~ucation offers still another example of
thinking or phantasy, but is the logical develop-
spunous, abstdct tolerance in the guis~ of con-
ment of the given, the existing world. To the
//,';~; /..'v.e 7;; _.1 /Y/1/~-t J~t/'</(J )" Cu//t,(/'''• ( { / /~
_;::e,-7f"'
I/ cr-1
/ p/ /V[..tr1
t I
"'
,il(/t/£~;/;t,C5:5
J , 1 ~ 1
114 A cl:::y f, Gl /t r /'''~ Repressive Tolerance Herbert Marcuse tv tS / ··/ J.; "V
__/;tr•? /'~'"''"'{
, 1 5 /~_
1/zvcJ 1z o. /l v ~. c• r<f: c: 1 tJ v s ,._£J f.
creteness a.nd truth: it is epitomized in the con- "find · himself": from hts pol1t1cal existence,
cept of self-actualization. From the permissive- which is at the core of hjs entire existence. In-
ness of all sorts of license to the child, to the con- stead, it encourages non-conformity a~d letting-
stant psychological concern with the personal go in ways which l~ave the. real ~ngmes of :e-
problems of the student, a large-scale movement pression in• the society entirely mtact, which
is under way against the evils of repression and even strengthen these engipes by substituting the
the need for being oneself. Frequently brushed satisfactions of private and personal rebellion for
aside is the question as to what has to be re- ~ more than private and personal, and th.eref?re
pressed before one can be a self, oneself. The in- more authentic, opposition., The .des_ubh~~tton
dividual potential is first a negative one, a portion involved in this sort of self-actualization IS Itself
of the potential of his society: of aggression, repressive inasmuch as it weakens the necessity
guilt feeling, ignorance, resentme~t, c-:uelty and the power of the intellect, the catalytiC
which vitiate his life instincts. If the tdenttty of force of that unhappy consciousness which does
the self is to be more than the immediate realiza- not revel in the archetypal personal release of
tion of this potential (undesirable for the indi- frustration~hopeless resurgence of the I~ which
vidual as human being), then it requires repres- will sooner or later succumb to the ommpresent
sion and sublimation, conscious transformation. rationality of the adtilinistered world-:-but which
This process involves at each stage (to use the _r:e.coghizes the horror of the ~hole. m th~ mo~
ridiculed terms which here reveal their succinct priv/clte frqstration a11d actuahzes Itself m this
concreteness) the negation of the negation,
I recognition. .
mediation of the immediate, and identity is no I have tried to show how the changes m ad-
more and no less than this process. "Alienation" vanced democratic societies, which. have under-
is the constant and essential element of identity, mined the basis of economic and political liberal-
the objective side of the ~ubject-and not, as it ism have also altered the liberal function of tol-
is made to appear today, a disease, a psychologi- era~ce. The tolerance which was the great
cal condition. Freud well knew the difference achievement of the liberal era is still professed
between progressive and regressive, liberating and (with strong qualifications) prac~iced,.while
and destructive repression. The publicity of self-
the economic and political. process. I~ sub~ect~d
actualization promotes the removal of the one to an ubiquitous and effectt~e ad~Imstration m
and the other, it promotes existence in that im- accordance with the predommant mterests. The
mediacy which, in a repressive society, is (to use result is an objective contradiction between .the
another Hegelian term) bad immediacy economic and political structure on the one side,
( schlechte Unmittelbarkeit). It isolates the indi- and the theory and practice of toleration on the
vidual from the one dimension where he could other. The altered social structure tends to weak-
,.,)
\
"
116 Repressive Tolerance Herbert Marcuse 117
en the effectiveness of tolerance toward dis- lute authority of this law and this order against
senting and oppositional movements and to those who suffer from it and struggle against it
strengthen conservative and reactionary forces. -not for personal advantages and revenge, but
Equality of tolerance becomes abstract, spurious. for their share of humanity. There is no other
With the actual decline of dissenting forces in judge over them than the constituted authorities,
the society, the opposition is insulated in small the. police, and their own conscience. ttth~~):: use
and frequently antagonistic groups who, even violence, they do not start a new chaiJ;l of vio-
where tolerated within the narrow limits set by I lence but try to break an established one. Since
the hierarchical structure of society, are power- they will be punished, they know the risk, and
less while they keep within these limits. But the when they are willing to take it, no third person,
tolerance shown to them is deceptive and pro- and least of all the educator and intellectual, has
motes coordination. And on the firm foundations the right to preach them abstention.
of a coordinated society all but closed against
qualitative change, tolerance itself serves to con-
tain such change rather than to promote it.
These same conditions render the critique
of such tolerance abstract and academic, and the
proposition that the balance between tolerance POSTSCRIPT 1968
toward the Right and toward the Left would
have to be radically redressed in order to restore
the liberating function of tolerance becomes
only an unrealistic speculation. Indeed, such a re-
' UNDER the conditions prevailing in this
country, tolerance does not, and cannot, fulfill
dressing seems to be tantamount to the establish- the civilizing function attributed to it by the
ment of a "right of resistance" to the point of liberal protagonists of democracy, namely, pro-
subversion. There is not, there cannot be any tection of dissent. The progressive historical
such right for any group or individual against a force of tolerance lies in its extension to those
constitutional government sustained by a majori- modes and forms of dissent which are not com-
ty of the population. But I believe that there is a mitted to the status quo of society, and not con-
"natural right" of resistance for oppressed and fined to the institutional framework of the estab-
overpowered minorities to use extralegal means lished society. Consequently, the idea of toler-
i(Jhe legal ones have proved to be inadequate. ance implies the necessity, for the dissenting
Law and order are always and everywhere the group or individuals, to become illegitimate if
law and order which protect the established and when the established legitimacy prevents
hierarchy; it is nonsensical to invoke the abso- and counteracts the development of dissent. This
118 Postscript 1968 Herbert Marcuse
119
would be the case not only in a totalitarian soci- radical opposition. Here too, free competition
ety, under a dictatorship, in one-party states, but and exchange of ideas have become a farce. The
also in a democracy (representative, parliament- Left has no equal voice·, no equal access to the
ary, or "direct") where the majo~ity does not mass media and their public facilities-not be-
result from the development of independent cause a conspiracy excludes it, but because, in
thought and opinion but rather from the monop- good old capitalist fashion, it does not have the
olistic or oligopolistic administration of public required purchasing power. And the Left does
opinion, without terror and (normally) wi~ut not have the purchasing power because it is the
censorship. In such cases, the majority is self- L~ft. !~ese conditions ~mpose upon the radical
perpetuating while perpetuating the vested in- nunonttes a strategy which is in essence a refusal
terests which made it a majority. In its very to allow the continuous functioning of allegedly
structure this majority is "closed," petrified; it indiscriminate but in fact discriminate toleranc~
repels "a priori" any change other than changes for example, a strategy of protesting against th~
within the system. But this means that the major- alternate matching of a spokesman for the Right
ity is no longer justified in claiming the demo- (or Center) with one for the Left. Not "equal"
cratic title of the best guardian of the common but more repr~sentatiOtr of the Left would be
interest. And such a majority is all but the op- equalization of the ptevailing inequality.
posite of Rousseau's "general will": it is com- . Within the solid framework of preestablished
posed, not of individuals who, in. their political mequality and power, tolerance is practiced in-
functions, have made effective "abstraction" deed. Even outl'ageous opinions are expressed,
from their private interests, but, on the contrary, outrageous incidents are televised; and the critics
of individuals who have effectively identified 7 of established policies are interrupted by the
their private interests with their political func- same number of commercials as the conservative
,U.QJIS. And the representatives of this majority, in advocates. Are these interludes supposed to
ascertaining and executing its will, ascertain and counteract the sheer weight, magnitude, and
execute the will of the vested interests which continuity of system-publicity, indoctrination
have formed the majority. The ideology of which operates playfully through the endless
democracy hides its lack of substance. commercials as well as through the entertain-
In the United States, this tendency goes hand ment?
in hand with the monopolistic or oligopolistic . Given this situation, I suggested in "Repres-
concentration of capital in the formation of pub- sive Tolerance" the practice of discriminating
lic opinion, i.e., of the majority. The chance of tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of
influencing, in any effective way, this majority shifting the balance between Right and Left by
is at a price, in dollars, totally out of reach of the restraining the liberty of the Right, thus co,unter-
120 Postscript 1968 Herbert Marcuse 121
acting the pervasive inequality of freedom ( un- very faculties in which liberalism saw the roots
equal opportunity of access to the m~ans of of freedom: independent thought and independ-
democratic persuasion) and strengthenmg the ent speech, can carry no overriding validity and
oppressed against the oppressors. Tolerance authority-even if The People constitute the
would be restricted with respect to movements overwhelming majority.
of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive
If the choice were between genuine democ-
character (destructive of the prospects for peace,
racy and dictatorship, democracy would cer-
justice, and freedom for all). Such discriminat~on
tainly be preferable. But democracy does n_?t
would also be applied to movements opposmg
prevail. The radical critics of the existing poht-
the extension of social legislation to the poor,
ical process are thus readily denounced as advo-
weak, disabled. As against the virulent den.uncia-
cating ad "elitism," a dictatorship of intellectuals
tions that such a policy would do away wtth the
as an alternative. What we have in fact is govern-
sacred liberalistic principle of equality for "the
ment, representative government by a non-intel-
other side," I maintain that there are issues where
lectual minority of politicians, generals, and
either there is no "other side" in any more than
a formalistic sense, or where "the other side" is
businessmen. lPe record. ?f this" "elite~' is not
very promising, and pohttcal prerogatives for
demonstrably "regressive" and i~~edes possible
the intelligentsia may p.ot necessarily be worse
improvement of the human ~nd~t~on. To toler-
for the society as a whole,
ate propaganda for inhumamty vttlates the g~als
not only of liberalism but of every progressive In any case, John$tuart Mill, not exactly an
political philosophy. enemy of liberal and representative government,
I presupposed the existence ~f dem<}llstra?le was not so allergic to the political leadership of
criteria for aggressive, regresstve, destructive the intelligentsia as the contemporary guardians
forces. If the final democratic criterion of the of semi-democracy are. Mill believed that "in-
declared opinion of the majority no longer (or dividual mental superiority" justifies "reckoning
rather not yet) prevails, if vital ideas, values, one person's opinion as equivalent to more than
and ends of human progress no longer (or rather one":
not yet) enter, as competing equals, the forma- Until there shall have been..-devised, and until
tion of public opinion, if the people are no longer opinion is willing to accept, some mode. of
(or rather not yet) sovereign but "made" by :he plural voting which may assign to educatton
real sovereign powers-is there any alternative as such the degree of superior influence due to
other than the dictatorship of an "elite" over the it, and sufficient as a counterpoise to the
people? For the opinion of people ( usuall{ des- numerical weight of the least educated class,
for so long the benefits of completely univer-
ignated as The People) who are unfree m the
sal suffrage cannot be obtained without·bring-
Herbert Marcuse 123
122 Postscript 1968
this struggle is the fight ~gainst an ideolog~ of
ing with them, as it appears to me, more than
tolerance which, in reality, ;favors an? fortt~es
equivalent evils. 1
the conservation of the status quo of mequahty
"Distinction in favor of education, right in it- and discrimination. For this struggle, I proposed
self," was also supposed to preserve "the edu- the practice of discriminating tolerance. To. be
cated from the class legislation of the unedu- sure, this practice already ~resupposes t~e radtc~l
cated," without enabling the f9rmer to practice goal which it seeks to achteve. I commttted th~s
a class legislation of their own. 2 petitio principii in order to c?mbat the. pe~m
Today, these words have understandably an cious ideology that tolerance ts already msn~u
antidemocratic, "elitist" sound-understandably tionalized in this society. The tolerance w~tch
because of their dangerously radical implica- is the lifif element, the token of a free soctet~,
tions. For if "education" is more and other than will never be the gift of the powers that be; It
training, learning, preparing. for the rxisting can, under the prevailing conditions of tyra~ny
society, it means not only enabling man to know by the majority, ~y. ~e~o~ .in the sustame~
and understand the facts which make up reality eff.ort of t,adical mmortt1es, wtlhng to break thts
but also to know and understand the factors that tyranny and to work f~r the ~me~~enc.e of a free
establish the facts so that he can change their and sovereign majortty-~mor~ttes mtolerant,
inhuman reality. And such humanistic education militantly intolerant and dtsobedten~ to the rules
would involve the "hard" sciences ("hard" as in of behavior which tolerate destruction and sup-
the "hardware" bought by the Pentagon?), pression.
would free them from their destructive direc-
tion. In other words, such education would in-
deed badly serve the Establishment, and to give
political prerogatives to the men and women
thus educated would indeed be anti-democratic
in the terms of the Establishment. But these are
not the only terms. '
However, the alternative to the established
semi-democratic process is not a dictatorship or
elite, no matter how intellectual and intelligent,
but the struggle for a real democracy. Part of