O presente trabalho tem por objetivo problematizar a inserção da teoria das pulsões no pensamento de Herbert Marcuse, mais especificamente em sua obra publicada em 1955 sob o título Eros e civilização: uma interpretação filosófica do pensamento de Freud. Aproximadamente três décadas antes a essa publicação de Marcuse, Freud publicou a obra que rearticulou como um todo o seu pensamento: o ensaio sobre a hipótese da Pulsão de Morte. Tal foi a sua repercussão, tanto clínica como cultural, que fez com que a psicanálise avançasse em temas como o masoquismo, a compulsão à repetição, a psicologia de massas e a destrutividade, chegando mesmo a problematizar o desenvolvimento cultural humano em sua possibilidade de garantir a vida comunal diante de uma pulsão para além do princípio de prazer. Não obstante, a recepção dessa conceituação provocou diversas revisões da psicanálise. Dentre as que aqui interessam, destacaram-se aquelas que foram atravessadas pelas questões relativas ao socialismo, já que questionaram a condição de imutabilidade da Pulsão de Morte. Contudo, as propostas desse Revisionismo Neofreudiano, que tentava articular marxismo e psicanálise, culminaram na extirpação da teoria das pulsões, dessexualizando a psicanálise. Ao criticar essa tendência popular, à época, a obra de Marcuse renovou o impasse: como inserir a metapsicologia, especialmente o conceito de Pulsão de Morte, no contexto das pesquisas do Instituto para Pesquisa Social de Frankfurt, fundamentalmente marxista? O autor realocou a psicanálise no debate crítico sobre a cultura, renovando também outra questão que se vinculava à Pulsão de Morte: a relação entre dominação e progresso constituiria realmente o princípio da civilização? Sob esse contexto, a presente pesquisa articulou os seguintes pontos, a fim de esclarecer as ressonâncias da teoria das pulsões no pensamento de Marcuse: a) buscou-se esclarecer a crítica marcuseana às escolas culturalistas Neofreudianas; b) procurou-se compreender alguns pontos da conceituação sobre a Pulsão de Morte na obra de Freud; c) e, por fim, os desdobramentos dessa pulsão na obra Eros e civilização. Pode-se apontar que Marcuse centrou o debate sobre a cultura no conflito entre os princípios de prazer e realidade. Entretanto, o autor não negou a Pulsão de Morte em suas análises, mas a sua atividade numa realidade regida pelo princípio de desempenho, comparada com sua atividade regida por um mais além princípio de desempenho, já que, aliviada a tensão, pouco se expressaria. Problematizou-se a conclusão dessa obra, pois, não sendo a Pulsão de Morte somente alívio de tensão, ela insistiu na dinâmica da civilização como negação do indivíduo. A proposição de uma utopia foi questionada posteriormente pelo próprio autor e, assim, permaneceu seu posicionamento crítico, na medida em que compreendeu, nas próprias conceituações da psicanálise, a negação do existente, ou seja, a revelação da negação do indivíduo / The present work aims to debate the insertion of the drive theory in Herbert Marcuses thinking, as per, more specifically, this authors work Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud published in 1955. Approximately three decades before this Marcuses publication, Freud had published a work which articulated his thinking as a whole: the essay on the hypothesis of the death drive. The great repercussion of the former work, in both clinical and cultural terms, made psychoanalysis advance in themes such as masochism, compulsion to repetition, crowd psychology and destructivity, besides having discussed human cultural development within its possibility of guaranteeing communal life in the face of a drive, which goes beyond pleasure principle. Nevertheless, the approach of this new concept provoked many reviews in the psychoanalysis area one of which we can highlight. Questions related to socialism were examined, as they referred to the immutability of the condition of the death drive. However, the proposals of this Neo-Freudian Revisionism which tried to merge Marxism and psychoanalysis, terminated in the extirpation of the theory of drives and generated an opposed movement to the previously accepted eroticization of psychoanalysis. As Marcuses work criticized such a popular trend at that time, it renewed the dilemma: how to insert metapsychology, particularly the death drive concept, in the context of the researches carried out in the Institute of Social Research of Frankfurt which was fundamentally Marxist? The author reallocated psychoanalysis in the midst of critical debate on culture, and also renewed another inquiry that is linked to the death drive: would the relationship between dominance and progress really constitute the principle of civilization? In this context, this research discussed the following points to clarify the echoes of the drive theory in Marcuses thinking: a) by trying to elucidate Marcusean critical theory to the Neo- Freudian culturalist schools; b) by analyzing some elements in the concept of death drive in Freuds work; c) ultimately, by understanding the outcome of death drive in Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud. Furthermore, we can point out that Marcuse focused the debate about culture on the conflict between the principles of pleasure and reality. Still, the author did not discredit death drive itself in his analysis, but its mechanisms in a reality led by performance principle if compared to the previously referred drives action conducted by a beyond the performance principle, as the death drive would be nonexpressive after tension had been released. Also, the conclusion of that book was examined, as death drive is not only tension release. Moreover, that work insisted on the point that the dynamics of civilization can be considered a denial of the individual. The proposition of a utopia was questioned afterwards by the author himself. Thus, his assertion remained a critical one as Marcuse understood the denial of the existent in his own concept of psychoanalysis, that is, the revelation of the negation of the individual

In this thesis ”The Dialectics of Technology: Ambivalences and Ruptures in Herbert Marcuses’ Philosophy of Technology” I present a thorough analysis of Herbert Marcuses’philosophy of technology as it developed from the late 1940s until his death in 1979. Whereas, previous studies have tried to reduce his philosophy of technology to one coherent project, I argue that his philosophy of technology is characterised by ambivalences and ruptures and therefore cannot be reduced to such a coherent totality. Marcuses’ philosophy of technology vacillates between what I, with Andrew Feenbergs’ concepts, callan instrumentalist and substantialist notion of technology. An instrumentalist notion is one where technology is understood merely as a tool to be wielded by external actors, in Marcuses’ case that of the capitalist class and the state. In contrast to this, Marcuse also precents a substantialist philosophy of technology, where it is imbued with its own agency and direction.The previous scholarship has largely reduced Marcuses’ philosophy to one of these positions, rather than emphasising how both of them are present through out the text. Furthermore, I argue that his substantialist understanding of technology itself is characterised by ruptures and ambivalences, where technology is viewed both as inherently emancipatory and as inherently subjugating. It is in regard to this duality I argue that his philosophy of technology should be understood as dialectical, in the sense that technology at the same time can be a central part of human subjection and one of the most important vehicles for emancipation. In relation to this, I agree with Samir Gandesha that one of the most fruitful directions Marcuses’ philosophy opens is an understanding of technology as bearer of a historical substance, that is to say that technology is imbued with certain goals, desires and world-views beyond those of the wielder, while at the same time understanding that this substance can be changed through historical processes. Beyond the more exegetic presentation of Marcuses’ philosophy and the critique against the previous scholarship, I argue for critical theory, and especially Marcuses’, relevance for current debates around technology and automation. In the current debates between left wing accelerationist cheerleaders of technology and those radicals more sceptical of technologies emancipatory potential, an investigation into the nature of technology itself is severely lacking. While, the former uncritically embraces the technology arisen in capitalist society and views it as a direct path towards a utopian post-scarcity communism,the latter solely focuses on technology as a tool of capitalist class power. In relation to this, I argue that the historical and dialectical understanding of technology that can be salvaged from Marcuses oeuvre would be a welcome and useful addition to the debate.

Le développement de la pensée d’Herbert Marcuse peut se comprendre comme le résultat d’un effort pour trouver un fondement de la critique autre que celui, absolument inévitable en philosophie, de la Raison. De son adhésion initiale à l’inspiration hégélienne de la Théorie critique jusqu’au renversement de ses fondements au courant de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Marcuse a refusé obstinément de nuancer son analyse du déclin des capacités de négation de l’ordre établi dans la société industrielle avancée, mais sans pour autant renoncer à identifier ce qui, « de l’intérieur », pouvait encore receler un potentiel de transformation. Marcuse tente en effet d’échapper à l’aporie inhérente à sa critique radicale de la Raison en s’efforçant de trouver dans les différentes sphères de l’existence humaine une dimension encore capable de résister à son intégration totalitaire dans le capitalisme avancé. Ce projet de recherche vise donc à établir, à travers une incursion dans la conception moderne de la Raison et la critique fondamentale que Marcuse lui adresse, s’il existe dans son oeuvre une alternative théorique pour une critique sociale qui ne prétendrait plus trouver dans la Raison ses fondements. Trois « moments » de la pensée de Marcuse seront examinés : d’abord celui de son engagement en faveur d’une « organisation rationnelle de la société », où se dévoilent ses attaches à Hegel et au projet initial de la Théorie critique ; ensuite celui de la critique de la Raison, où Marcuse brise ses liens avec cet idéal moderne et expose la relation qui arrime étroitement la Raison à la « logique de la domination » ; puis, finalement, celui où s’esquisse la possibilité de fonder, sur le terrain de la sensibilité, une autre forme de rationalité. / The development of Herbert Marcuse’s thought can be understood as the result of an effort to look for a ground for critique other than Reason, the cornerstone of philosophical thought. From his initial adhesion to the Hegelian inspirations of critical theory until the overturning of their foundations during World War II, Marcuse stubbornly refused to temper his observations on the weakening ability to reject the establishment in advanced industrial societies while still searching for that which could, “from the inside”, harbor potential for transformation. Marcuse strives indeed to avoid the inherent aporias of his radical critique of Reason by searching for a dimension of human existence still capable of resisting its totalitarian integration to late capitalism. Through an incursion into the modern understanding of Reason and its Marcusian critique, our study thereby aims to determine if a theoretical alternative exists within Marcuse’s thought for a socio-critical standpoint that no longer relies on the traditional grounds of Reason. Three “moments” of Marcuse’s thought will be analyzed: firstly, his theoretical involvement in favor of a “rational organization of society”, where Marcuse’s ties to Hegel and the original project of critical theory appear more clearly; secondly, his critique of Reason, where Marcuse moves away from this modern ideal and exposes the link that inextricably relates Reason to the “logic of domination”; and, lastly, his sketch of the possibility of establishing another form of rationality rooted in the field of sensibility.

The project of sustainable development, as reflected in the Agenda 2030 and the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals, plays a central role in the story of crisis and transformation today. Yet, this project has rarely been the object of ideology critique. This paper formulates an ideology critique as a form of immanent critique of the project of sustainable development with a basis in Herbert Marcuse’s one-dimensionality thesis. The analysis of the ideology of sustainable development is structured around the three-pillar conception of sustainability which is applied in the Agenda 2030. The transformative potential of the project of sustainable development is assessed on the background of the analysis. The transformative potential in each of the three pillars is found to be inhibited by the project of sustainable development and the paper identifies and explains the ideological mechanisms through which this inhibition takes place. The research suggests that the project of sustainable development cannot be seen as a transformative project.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2002. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 358-363). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2002. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 358-363). Also available on the Internet.

No description available.

The central argument of this thesis is that, contrary to what is generally believed, Critical Theory (CT) – as understood by the Frankfurt School (FS) – did exist and was developed in Spain influenced by and parallel to the FS’s own research during the second half of the twentieth century. Thus, the aim of this research is to provide evidence of and explore the CT developed by three leading Spanish thinkers: José Luis López Aranguren, Jesús Aguirre, and María Zambrano. This will be done from the perspective of two pivotal currents of thought emerging from Germany: neo-Marxism and Heideggerian thought. To this end, I will carry out an interdisciplinary comparative study analysing what aspects of the thought of these Spanish thinkers converge with the thought of the FS, and which differ from them. Attention will also be paid to the socio-political atmosphere they were immersed in, so as to find out how it may have contributed to shape their thought. This research is firmly rooted in the context and methodology of the history of ideas. Consequently, biography and intentionality play key role in the reconstruction and analysis of these three authors’s thought. As a result of this methodological choice, the thesis has been divided into two parts which are quite distinct in focus and style. The first part, more theoretical and historical in nature, comprises two chapters. Chapter One provides a brief introduction to the main argument of the thesis as well as to the authors that it focuses on. It also introduces the reader to what CT is and in the context of the FS. In addition, this chapter provides some background into the history of ideas and discusses in depth the methodology adopted throughout the thesis as well as the theory which supports it. Chapter Two constitutes a short introduction to twentieth-century Spain. It provides some initial background on Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre and their political positions. It also provides a contextualization of the socio-historical period that they lived in. The second part of the thesis comprises a total of four chapters: a chapter for each individual author and the conclusion. This second part is more critical and focuses more closely on each one of the three authors which are the object of this thesis, so that their work and development can be studied acknowledging the singularity of their approach. It is for this reason that, the conclusion will underline the cohesiveness of their work and their achievements in relation to each other, as well as highlighting the key concepts explored throughout the thesis. Chapter Three explores Aranguren’s relationship to neo-Marxism and, more specifically, to Marcuse. Moreover, the fact that Aranguren explicitly takes up and develops some of the key topics first identified by the FS, which are central to the critique of instrumental reason, is brought to light, specifically, Aranguren’s criticism of consumerism and his denunciation of the manipulation citizens are subjected to from the mass media and the State. The implications of this critique and Aranguren’s defence of the role of faith and of democratic values are discussed at length. Chapter Four discusses the political nature of Zambrano’s thought. Because of the idiosyncrasies of her expression, the highly symbolic nature of her language, as well as its abstraction and dispersion, the analysis of her work requires a process of reconstruction. This is carried out in the light of Heideggerian thought, which proves to be an influential factor in her development. Finally, the value of poetic reason as a practical alternative to instrumental reason is considered, so that the significance and implications of poetic reason and of her political project can be re-evaluated. Chapter Five focuses on Aguirre, who, despite being a very well-known public figure, has not been the object of any previous scholarly work. This chapter evaluates the role and influence of the different positions that this charismatic intellectual held throughout his life, paying particular attention to his role as the introducer of the FS in Spain. Even more importantly, this chapter specifically aims to clarify his controversial relationship to CT. The sixth and final chapter focuses on pivotal aspects of CT, as argued throughout the these two volumes (the role of biography, fragmentation, exile, art, the subject, psychoanalysis, and spirituality) and it argues that all these elements are present in some form in the work of these three authors. Thus, it examines, by way of conclusion, the aspects of the approaches adopted by Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre which account for their work to be considered CT. Furthermore, I argue that by introducing the elements of spirituality, faith, and the role of choice, transcendentality becomes a key aspect of their alternative to instrumental reason. As a result, not only do they establish the singularity of their approach, but they also by-pass the limitations associated with the FS.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Duquesne University, 2005. / Title from document title page. Abstract included in electronic submission form. Includes bibliographical references (p. 213-219) and index.