Comparison of Two Theories of Modernity - Article Example

Theories of Modernity The Critical Theory and the Post-Marxist theory have both endeavored to spell out relevant theories of social change that may be applicable in the form of general underlying principles to developments in the world. Both these movements have focused upon Leftist ideology, but have emphasized freedom of the individual which is the characteristic feature of democratic societies. In their attack on capitalistic systems of Government that further deepen the inequalities among people and contribute to enslavement of the majority, both these systems of thought advocate the need for equality and freedom of individuals from the repression generated by nationalism and division of labor. However, the differences in these theories rests in the post-Marxist rejection of the tenets of classical Marxism, while the Classical Theory supports an active role for Left parties. The Post Marxist theory is lacking in that it does not have well defined positive principles that are its guiding point; rather it is a collection of beliefs centered around which aspects of Marxism are not relevant in today’s globalized era. On the other hand, the Critical Theory emphasizes a universal approach in that freedom needs to encompass not only economic and social freedom but also sexual freedom so that people are released from all the repressions inflicted on them through labor by a free expression of their sexuality. Yet, this theory also suffers from limitations in that it is effective in critiquing the existing system but offers so structured new social theory that may be implemented in a widely diverse globalized economy where America is emerging as a unilateral force that may be guilty of imposing its nationalistic aims upon other nations; as evidenced in incidents such as Abu Gharaib. One of the persistent themes that runs through Marcuse’s critical theory of modernity is the negation of freedom that is the result of an advanced industrial society (Fraser, 2005). He is of the view that advanced industrial society tends to promote a one dimensional sphere of thought and integrates all opposition forces into the system. Human reality that is geared around the procuring of the pre-requisites of existence is akin to enslavement by socially necessary labor, and truth is incompatible with this reality, because as long as the enslavement prevails, freedom of thought and speech remains a class privilege. (Marcuse, 1964: 123-25). On this basis therefore, he concludes that the primary feature of all advanced industrial societies is the forces of domination, that are in force through the societal division of labor. Marcuse views the Left movements and other social movements as being the agents who could overcome this domination. The dominance of Left parties is characteristic of Marxism, which is based upon the foundation of economic equality where all the citizens are placed on par through the restriction of the rights of rich people to achieve an economic excess at the expense of the poor, by empowering the masses. The tenets of Marxism are also actively supported by feminists such as McKinnon (1989), who have argued that feminism could replace Marxism as a wave of thought, that could rise in opposition to the liberalism that has formed the foundation of legal thought and has brought about oppression of weaker segments of society. The elimination of the bourgeois and the empowerment of the working classes is at the root of Marxist thought, in order that social revolution dispels the enslavement of the working class through economic equalization, leading to freedom. In the expression of cultural freedom, Marcuse emphasizes the importance of social rebellion expressed in the importance of aesthetics and eroticism as a means to reiterate freedom. He offers the view that man can avoid the fate of a Welfare-through-Warfare state by achieving a new state, through transformation.(Marcuse, 1955: Preface). He believes that there is a need for transformation of the norms and aspirations that motivate social groups in present societies; since these norms are repressed, they must form the basis upon which a cultural revolution must emerge. The new direction of man’s progress depends on the opportunity to activate arrested or repressed organic, biological needs and to make the human body an instrument of pleasure rather than labor.(Marcuse, 1955:Preface). In critiquing the current forms of social formation however, he also appeals to moral universality: “That man is a rational being, that this being requires freedom, and that happiness is his highest good are all universal propositions whose progressive impetus derives precisely from their universality…..In a society whose reality gives the lie to these universals, philosophy cannot make them concrete. Under such conditions, adherence to universality is more important than its philosophical destruction.” (Hoy and McCarthy, 1995:23) The critical theory of modernity does not support the existence of capitalism, and Marcuse criticizes the economic system and foreign policy that characterize capitalism; he offers the view that the true realization of a great society as articulated by President Johnson would mean going around the capitalist system (Fraser, 2005). According to Marcuse, capitalism indicates a bourgeois democracy, in which neo fascist forces are increasing their power to transform the so called democracy into a police and warfare state. In his analysis of the Watergate scandal, Marcuse views it as an ordinary manifestation of the bourgeois democracy, and exposes the corrupt nature of the Government where capitalism itself is unable to thrive without using violence and illegal, illegitimate means (Fraser, 2005). Capitalism has been challenged by theorists such as Horkheimer and Adorno on the basis that it contains anti-democratic tendencies, since the drive for profits eliminate more humane concerns. Globalization has however produced an atmosphere where Marxism as an ideology that was practiced by the Communist countries is now a vanishing trend. As Curry(2006) points out, the principle of a post-Marxist theory have been difficult to pin down. At best, it may be more clearly defined by what it is not; the characteristic post-Marxist dislike of systems and orthodoxy, party apparatus, control and totalizing theory – all component aspects of erstwhile Marxism. Advocates of post Marxism therefore favor pluralism and differences, skepticism and spontaneous political action mooted by individuals. Therefore the post Marxist theory of modernity may be more accurately characterized as disenfranchised Marxism, as evident in the works of Adorno and Marcuse. Curry (2006) explains that post Marxists such as Adorno have critiqued the notion of unity in Marxism, wherein the individual identity is submerged in the collective self, as represented through the Party. They also attack the total control that underlines Marxist practice, whereby it is claimed that control may be achieved over social totality by understanding its under pinning dialectic. Bureaucracy, which anticipates change and claims to provide for it, is therefore a diminishing feature in post-Marxist thought, so that individual identity becomes more important than the good of the collective. Curry (2006) further points out that Marcuse has also eschewed the principles of traditional Marxism in the post war capitalist era, where he suggests that the role of the working class needs to move beyond the traditional parameters defined under Marxism. Post-Marxist theory therefore appears to rely upon the nostalgic utopian ideal of an equal society as envisaged under Marxism while also being sensitive to other theories of thought, such as post structuralism and feminism. Curry (2006) concludes by suggesting that the views of Althusser support the notion that not all Marxist tenets need to be thrown out, there may be room to maneuver within the rigid tenets of Marxism to make it more relevant in modern social theory. While examining the views of Lenin who has explained the basics for social revolution in the discovery of unity among groups of different individuals, Althusser states that “if a vast accumulation of contradictions comes into play in the same court , some of which are radically heterogeneous - of different origins, different sense, different levels and points of application - but which nevertheless merge into a ruptural unity, we can no longer talk about the sole, unique power of the general contradiction”(Althusser,1969: 100). Hence, despite the differences among national and cultural groups, there is scope for a unification through revolution achieved in support of a common cause – the elimination of anti-democratic forces. Since Marxism aims to eliminate enslaving forces symbolized by the bourgeois, it may be utilized to contest anti-democratic forces in any part of the world. Anti-democratic trends for example, underlies the forces of nationalism, which according to Adorno propels violent and angry acts by individuals who believe in it, because in today’s age of globalization, it has become increasingly difficult for nationalism to believe in itself and it needs to exaggerate in order to sustain its belief in itself. He has called for a re-fashioning of education to prevent inhuman acts resulting from the capitalistic drive in the global free market (Adorno, 191-196). The recent incidents at Abu Gharaib prison appear to support American nationalism and display the inherent sadistic acts and unilateralism associated with it. Adorno’s concern with education centered around the supplementing knowledge with self criticism and Giroux argues that self reflection and the capacity for self knowledge must fuel critical knowledge in America to bring American unilateralism to an end.(Giroux, 2004:18-19) The critical theory is limited in that it critiques but does not change the existing system. Moreover, the decline of the Left movements is another limiting factor in its application modern social theory, suggesting that a new language of theory may now be needed in the new global context that the world has evolved into. Post Marxist thought is identified more by its rejection of classical Marxist principles, while there appears to be scope to expand upon the basic tenets of economic and social equality in order to eliminate the threats to individual freedom which have been highlighted by Marcuse and similar thinkers who have espoused the Critical theory of modernity. References: * Adorno, T.W., 1998 “Critical Models: Education after Auschwitz” New York: Columbia University Press * Althusser, L, 1969. “For Marx”, London: Allen Lane. * Curry, Neil, 2006. “Filling the void: Post Marxism?” Capital and Class, 88: 160-166 * Fraser, Ian, 2005. “Towards a critical theory of society: collected papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume 2.” Contemporary Political Theory, 4(4), p 469 * Giroux, Henry A, 2004.“What education might mean after Abu Gharib: revisiting Adorno’s Politics of Education.” Comparative studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 21(4): -24 * Hoy, D and McCarthy, T, 1995. “Critical Theory” Blackwell * MacKinnon, Catherine,.1989. Toward a feminist Theory of State Cambridge: Harvard University Press * Marcuse, Herbert, 1964. “One Dimensional Man” Ark Paperbacks. * Marcuse, Herbert, 1955, 1966. “Eros and civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud”, with a new preface published in 1966. Boston: Beacon Press Read More