A pesquisa apresenta a teoria marcuseana do poder como perspectiva crítica no debate contemporâneo acerca do conceito foucaultiano de biopolítica. À primeira vista, tal relação parece controversa, ao reconhecer que Foucault desenvolve seu conceito paralelamente à crítica contra Marcuse. Ora, o conceito foucaultiano de biopolítica descreve jogos de poder como administração dos corpos e também como um modo de cálculo da vida da população. Tal concepção contraria diretamente a hipótese marcuseana do poder repressivo, um modelo crítico que tem em vista uma camada verdadeira e subjacente de poder, recalcada nas formações sociais e subjetivas estabelecidas. Com esse quadro, como reunir os dois autores na crítica do poder, assumindo a biopolítica como premissa da teoria do poder? De fato, a aproximação seria impossível ao partir da aposta marcuseana em uma civilização nãorepressiva, presente em Eros e Civilização. Contudo, com a análise do avanço da racionalidade instrumental no pós-Guerra em O Homem Unidimensional, Marcuse avalia a possibilidade de um poder não-repressiva. Afinal, na nova ordem social não se apresenta mais um controle repressivo dos corpos, mas sim uma excitação da vida e dos corpos em movimento. Seria este um sinal de concordância entre os autores? E ainda, dada esta nova correspondência, é possível aproveitar a crítica foucaultiana à biopolítica para redimensionar não apenas as reflexões de Marcuse sobre o poder, como também as passagens contemporâneas entre a teoria crítica e a genealogia do poder? / This research presents Marcuses theory of power as an essential perspective for the contemporary debate on the Foucaultian concept of biopolitics. This would seem a rather controversial choice at a first glance, as, admittedly, the development of Foucaults concept occurred alongside that of his critique of Marcuse. Indeed, Foucaults conception of biopolitics describes games of power that include the administration of the bodies and the calculated management of the life of a given population a notion entirely adverse to Marcuses repressive hypothesis of power, a critical model that assumes a real, subjacent layer of power that is repressed in established social and subjective formations. Given these differences, as well as an adoption of biopolitics as a fundamental premise for a theory of power, how are the two authors to be brought together for a critique of power? Such an approximation would certainly be impossible in light of Marcuses arguments, in Eros and Civilization, for the possibility of a non-repressive civilization. Still, through the analysis of the advancement of instrumental rationality in the postwar period conducted in One- Dimensional Man, Marcuse will revise his former perspective on non-repressive power; after all, the new social order no longer features a repressive control of bodies, but rather an excitation of life, and of bodies to motion. Could that be understood as a sign of agreement between the authors? Furthermore, given this new correspondence, would it be possible to employ Foucaults critique to add dimensions not only to Marcuses reflections on power, but to contemporary mediations between critical theory and the genealogy of power?

A pesquisa apresenta a teoria marcuseana do poder como perspectiva crítica no debate contemporâneo acerca do conceito foucaultiano de biopolítica. À primeira vista, tal relação parece controversa, ao reconhecer que Foucault desenvolve seu conceito paralelamente à crítica contra Marcuse. Ora, o conceito foucaultiano de biopolítica descreve jogos de poder como administração dos corpos e também como um modo de cálculo da vida da população. Tal concepção contraria diretamente a hipótese marcuseana do poder repressivo, um modelo crítico que tem em vista uma camada verdadeira e subjacente de poder, recalcada nas formações sociais e subjetivas estabelecidas. Com esse quadro, como reunir os dois autores na crítica do poder, assumindo a biopolítica como premissa da teoria do poder? De fato, a aproximação seria impossível ao partir da aposta marcuseana em uma civilização nãorepressiva, presente em Eros e Civilização. Contudo, com a análise do avanço da racionalidade instrumental no pós-Guerra em O Homem Unidimensional, Marcuse avalia a possibilidade de um poder não-repressiva. Afinal, na nova ordem social não se apresenta mais um controle repressivo dos corpos, mas sim uma excitação da vida e dos corpos em movimento. Seria este um sinal de concordância entre os autores? E ainda, dada esta nova correspondência, é possível aproveitar a crítica foucaultiana à biopolítica para redimensionar não apenas as reflexões de Marcuse sobre o poder, como também as passagens contemporâneas entre a teoria crítica e a genealogia do poder? / This research presents Marcuses theory of power as an essential perspective for the contemporary debate on the Foucaultian concept of biopolitics. This would seem a rather controversial choice at a first glance, as, admittedly, the development of Foucaults concept occurred alongside that of his critique of Marcuse. Indeed, Foucaults conception of biopolitics describes games of power that include the administration of the bodies and the calculated management of the life of a given population a notion entirely adverse to Marcuses repressive hypothesis of power, a critical model that assumes a real, subjacent layer of power that is repressed in established social and subjective formations. Given these differences, as well as an adoption of biopolitics as a fundamental premise for a theory of power, how are the two authors to be brought together for a critique of power? Such an approximation would certainly be impossible in light of Marcuses arguments, in Eros and Civilization, for the possibility of a non-repressive civilization. Still, through the analysis of the advancement of instrumental rationality in the postwar period conducted in One- Dimensional Man, Marcuse will revise his former perspective on non-repressive power; after all, the new social order no longer features a repressive control of bodies, but rather an excitation of life, and of bodies to motion. Could that be understood as a sign of agreement between the authors? Furthermore, given this new correspondence, would it be possible to employ Foucaults critique to add dimensions not only to Marcuses reflections on power, but to contemporary mediations between critical theory and the genealogy of power?

My dissertation brings together representatives from two otherwise antagonistic traditions: Charles Peirce of the pragmatists and Herbert Marcuse of the critical theorists. I demonstrate the affinities between the two philosophers with a focus on their contributions to socio-political thought in advanced industrial societies. After addressing the antagonisms between the two traditions I offer a reading that allows for a Peircean complement to Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man and a Marcusean complement to Peirce's critique of the “method of authority” in his seminal essay, "The Fixation of Belief." / McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts; / Philosophy / PhD; / Dissertation;

Thesis (M.A.)--Acadia University, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.A.)--Acadia University, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.

This essay offers an intellectual history of the feud between the Frankfurt School philosophers Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. In the competitive space of their debate, both thinkers attempted to redefine the spiritual experience and practice of love in a modern society. While a criterion for both Fromm and Marcuse was that love must be politically and historically radical, their different visions of that historical radicalism - exemplified in their 1955 debate in Dissent, and the two texts published immediately after their debate, Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization (1955) and Fromm’s The Art of Loving - parted ways at the idea of perversion. Perversion became a central procedure in Marcuse’s praxis of a real “outlawed” love that could negate modernity’s excessive sociability of guilt. For Fromm, perversion remained a “spiritual” form of regression away from love and maturity that he likened to violence. In both instances, the memory of German fascism was key to the (un)productive mistranslation of their ideas on love and perversion. / text

No description available.

Thesis (doctoral)--Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen. / Bibliography: p. 302-327.

My dissertation examines the difference between European and American forms of alienation. My thesis is that while European forms of alienation tend to arise out of an ideology (that of bourgeois culture) that disparages the material world, encouraging an attitude of resignation toward the established order, American forms of alienation tend to arise out of an ideology (that of the frontier) that disparages the social world, encouraging an attitude of rugged individualism which also results in an attitude of resignation toward the established order. Thus, both forms of alienation end up affirming the given order, but in very different ways. These different ways should affect how social theorists analyze American culture and help them avoid totalizing analyses that blur the distinctions between American and European cultures. In order to comprehend the nature of alienation in post-1945 American society, I trace three forms of alienation from three spaces of possibility: that of (1) European bourgeois culture; (2) the American frontier; and (3) the American counterculture. These three spaces are examined successively in each chapter of this dissertation. In the "Introduction" I provide a general overview of the project, explaining its origins and significance. Then, I delineate the scope of this project, offer provisional ways of understanding of "alienation," "alienation in the European context," and "alienation in the American context," and discuss how my dissertation employs the metaphor of "space." Chapter One uses Herbert Marcuse's work to analyze the European space of possibility found in bourgeois culture. The first part of the chapter presents a general overview of Marcuse's thought. Here, I examine: Marcuse's "humanistic" reading of Marx, as found in "The Foundations of Historical Materialism"; the difference between Marcuse's interpretation of Marx and the "standard" mechanistic reading, including a discussion of Marcuse's criticisms of reductionist use of the base and superstructure model of historical materialism; and Marcuse's analysis of the revolutionary status of the proletariat under twentieth century conditions. The second part of Chapter One uses Marcuse's article "The Affirmative Character of Culture" to provide an account of bourgeois culture. This article, which describes affirmative culture as simultaneously regressive and progressive, provides the general framework for the entire dissertation. Chapter One ends with a discussion of One-Dimensional Man, where Marcuse provides his most detailed analysis of post-War culture. Here, I ask if there is a "refuge of hope" even in what is usually considered Marcuse's most pessimistic work. Chapter Two presents the nineteenth century American space of possibility, the frontier. I begin with Frederick Jackson Turner's and Jean de Crevècore's analyses of the American frontier as constitutive of the American character. Then, I move to a study of the material and ideological conditions underlying the culture of the frontier: the enclosure of the commons and the Protestant work ethic. Next, I ask if Marcuse can provide an analysis of American culture as distinct from European culture, and ask if we may consider Marcuse an "American philosopher." The chapter ends by considering the work of Paul Goodman, who provides an alternative understanding of American possibility, from the point of view of a native inculcated from birth with an American worldview. Chapter Three examines the central twentieth century American space of possibility, the counterculture. The first two parts of this chapter provide general histories of the American New Left of the 1960s and 1970s and the American counterculture of the same period. Here, I focus on how these movements interacted and how they were responding to similar experiences of alienation. Then I examine the primary material basis for both movements, which I take to be post-War economic expansion. The final two sections of Chapter Three attempt an interpretation of the American counterculture and the New Left through the use of Marcuse's aesthetic theory. The "Conclusion" restates the general argument of the dissertation, now with all of the details in place, examines two other reactions to alienation, political rollback and religious revivalism, asks what spaces of possibility may be emerging in the twenty-first century, and proposes some avenues for further research.

OLIVEIRA JUNIOR, Francisco Cardoso de. A função política da arte como elemento da efetividade da liberdade na dimensão estética de Herbert Marcuse. 2016. 151f. – Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Federal do Ceará, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia, Fortaleza (CE), 2016. / Submitted by Gustavo Daher (gdaherufc@hotmail.com) on 2017-06-05T16:46:34Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2016_dis_jcslacerda.pdf: 698702 bytes, checksum: e332c8465649bd9b86ce7f7e029bf280 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Márcia Araújo (marcia_m_bezerra@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-06-07T12:45:40Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2016_dis_jcslacerda.pdf: 698702 bytes, checksum: e332c8465649bd9b86ce7f7e029bf280 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-07T12:45:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2016_dis_jcslacerda.pdf: 698702 bytes, checksum: e332c8465649bd9b86ce7f7e029bf280 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016 / O objetivo deste trabalho é expor o caráter emancipatório e revolucionário da arte na filosofia crítica de Herbert Marcuse. Pelos textos do filósofo fica claro o papel da arte como elemento determinante na criação de condições para o surgimento de uma sociedade emancipada, justa e boa. No tempo em que se destacam as dificuldades de comunicação do discurso lógico, a arte surge como um instrumento mais complexo para a percepção da ligação entre as apreensões do presente e a esperança para o futuro. A forma como a arte pode contribuir no processo de emancipação do homem não está dissociada de seu momento histórico, por isso a abordagem do tema pelo filósofo, apresenta uma diversidade de caracterizações. Apesar dessa aparente oscilação nas formas de ver a arte e de como esta se relaciona com a sociedade e o homem, percebe-se na verdade que as diversas características não se anulam umas às outras, mas formam uma arquitetura que vai sendo progressivamente construída. Para uma real compreensão do caráter emancipatório e revolucionário da arte na filosofia de Herbert Marcuse foi necessário construir uma totalidade significativa a partir da relação de vários de seus escritos em diferentes épocas sobre estética