In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

reviews 175 have often docilely accepted canonical post-structuralist versions of the texts discussed inPolitics , Writing, Mutilation. Stoekl's bending the stick in the opposite direction is an important rection against such unproductive acquiescence. SANDY PETREY Herbert Marcuse: Art of Liberation by Barry Kátz. London: NLB/Verso, 1982. 234 pp. $8.50 (paper). Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism by Douglas Kellner. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. ? + 505 pp. $38.50 (cloth). Both books under review offer traditional intellectual biographies of Herbert Marcuse. By recounting the story of his life, they simultaneously seek to explain the unfolding of his thought. To lend unity and coherence to their stories, both also resort to a traditional narrative technqiue: the conclusion of the philosopher's journey is said to have been already implicit in its earliest beginnings. Barry Kátz traces this origin to Marcuse' literary researches during the 1920s. By uncovering a timeless aesthetic ideal, Marcuse tried to set forth a transcendent standard of beauty and creativity that could be used to criticize the social relationships and institutions of any given historical epoch. Throughout his career, Kátz suggests, he never ceased to search for a firm, rational foundation for permanent and unrelenting social criticism. While not discounting the importance of these early aesthetic studies, Douglas Kellner seeks the origins of Marcuse's project in his disillusionment with the reformist policies of the German Social Democratic party, particularly with its betrayal of the revolution of 1918. Inspired by Rosa Luxemburg, the martyred heroine of this abortive uprising, Marcuse would henceforth remain committed to the notion that revolution must be nothing less than a " 'catastrophic upheaval' that will overthrow and transform the society in its entirety." During each episode in his intellectual Odyssey, the authors argue, Marcuse remained faithful to his origins. At the same time, he progressively refined and perfected his initial insights as he successively came to grips with the great crises of his age: the collapse of Weimar democracy and the rise of fascism; the Second World War; Stalinism and the outbreak of the Cold War, and finally, the resurgence of revolutionary energies during the 1960s, both in the Thid World and in the American and European student movements. Marcuse is portrayed , above all else, as a "committed intellectual." Even his most abstract, theoretical works—his interpretations of Heidegger and Hegel, his critique of Soviet philosophy, his reappraisal of the Freudian legacy—are said to represent urgent attempts to confront and resolve the fundamental problems posed by each of these pivotal moments in history. Kátz and Kellner also exhibit a protective, sometimes apologetic attitude toward their subject. Both the theme and structure of their biographies seem designed to justify certain anomolous and rather questionable aspects of his career. Marcuse, they argue, was an uncompromising advocate of total criticism and total change. This flaming revolutionary spirit, however, never found the opportunity to join a radical political organization, descend into the streets and actually mount the barricades. Furthermore, he displayed a remarkable ability to accommodate himself to a bewildering variety of patrons. He apparently maintained excellent relations with his eminent teacher, Martin Heidegger, during the period that immediately preceeded Heidegger's declaration of fervent devotion to Adolph Hitler. Throughout the Second World War, he found safe haven in the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, and he remained a ranking official in the State Department well into the Cold War. One naturally wonders how this intransigent rebel managed to feel equally at home in the Frankfurt Institute , among the American foreign policy and academic establishments, and with the "flower children" of Berkeley and Berlin. Kellner and Kátz attempt to dispel any suspicions of inconsistency or opportunism. Marcuse's shifting intellectual and institutional allegiances, they contend, are perfectly justifiable when viewed in light of two factors: first, his unending quest for a permanent standard of total criticism; and second, his determination to grapple 176 the minnesota review with the mortal dangers and momentous opportunities posed by each historical conjuncture. These attempts to write for Marcuse an apologia pro vita sua raise—even if one concedes that his work was constantly motivated by a desire to recognize and respond...

pdf

Share