File Name: civilization and its discontents frederick gay.zip
After his abdication in November , the German emperor Wilhelm II continued to haunt the minds of his people.
Why Freud Survives
Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud ; second edition, is a book by the German philosopher and social critic Herbert Marcuse , in which the author proposes a non-repressive society, attempts a synthesis of the theories of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud , and explores the potential of collective memory to be a source of disobedience and revolt and point the way to an alternative future.
Its title alludes to Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents The edition has an added "political preface". One of Marcuse's best known works, the book brought him international fame.
Both Marcuse and many commentators have considered it his most important book, and it was seen by some as an improvement over the previous attempt to synthesize Marxist and psychoanalytic theory by the psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich. Eros and Civilization helped shape the subcultures of the s and influenced the gay liberation movement, and with other books on Freud, such as the classicist Norman O.
Some have evaluated Eros and Civilization as superior to Life Against Death , while others have found the latter work superior. It has been suggested that Eros and Civilization reveals the influence of the philosopher Martin Heidegger. Marcuse has been credited with offering a convincing critique of neo-Freudianism , but critics have accused him of being utopian in his objectives and of misinterpreting Freud's theories.
Critics have also suggested that his objective of synthesizing Marxist and psychoanalytic theory is impossible. In the "Political Preface" that opens the work, Marcuse writes that the title Eros and Civilization expresses the optimistic view that the achievements of modern industrial society would make it possible to use society's resources to shape "man's world in accordance with the Life Instincts, in the concerted struggle against the purveyors of Death.
He discusses the social meaning of biology — history seen not as a class struggle , but a fight against repression of our instincts. He argues that "advanced industrial society" modern capitalism is preventing us from reaching a non-repressive society "based on a fundamentally different experience of being, a fundamentally different relation between man and nature, and fundamentally different existential relations".
Marcuse also discusses the views of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schiller ,  and criticizes the psychiatrist Carl Jung , whose psychology he describes as an "obscurantist neo-mythology". Eros and Civilization was first published in by Beacon Press. In , it was published as a Beacon Paperback. Young in the New Statesman. Tuttle,  R. Howell,  and M. In doing so, he admits that his entire work is psychoanalytically fraudulent, as H Jay Margolis has pointed out in The Expansion Compulsion.
Its original debunking of Marcuse is located in the Colorado State University library. By knowingly utilizing a false definition of Repression, the rest of the book is built on a false premise [Citation needed? Edel credited Marcuse distinguishing between what portion of the burden repressive civilization places on the fundamental drives is made necessary by survival needs and what serves the interests of domination and is now unnecessary because of the advanced science of the modern world, and with suggesting what changes in cultural attitudes would result from relaxation of the repressive outlook.
He wrote that Marcuse's conclusions about "surplus repression" converted Freud into an "eroticised Marx", and credited Marcuse with convincingly criticizing the neo-Freudians Fromm, Horney, and Sullivan. Though maintaining that both they and Marcuse confused "ideology with reality" and minimized "the biological sphere", he welcomed Marcuse's view that "the distinction between psychological and political categories has been made obsolete by the condition of man in the present era.
Tuttle suggested that Eros and Civilization could not be properly understood without reading Marcuse's earlier work Hegel's Ontology and the Theory of Historicity Brown, despite the difference of tone between the two thinkers. He dismissed the ideas of both Marcuse and Brown as false and harmful. Whitfield in Dissent. Mattick credited Marcuse with renewing "the endeavor to read Marx into Freud", following the unsuccessful attempts of Wilhelm Reich , and agreed with Marcuse that Freudian revisionism is "reformist or non-revolutionary".
However, he wrote that Freud would have been surprised at the way Marcuse read revolutionary implications into his theories. He argued that Marcuse tried to develop ideas that were already present in "the far less ambiguous language of Marxian theory", but still welcomed the fact that Marcuse made psychoanalysis and dialectical materialism reach the same desired result.
However, he concluded that Marcuse's "call to opposition to present-day conditions remains a mere philosophical exercise without applicability to social actions. Whitfield noted that Marcuse considered Eros and Civilization his most important book, and wrote that it "merits consideration as his best, neither obviously dated nor vexingly inaccessible" and that it "was honorable of Marcuse to try to imagine how the fullest expression of personality, or plenitude, might extinguish the misery that was long deemed an essential feature of the human condition.
Grotjahn described the book as a "sincere and serious" philosophical critique of psychoanalysis, adding that it was both well-written and fascinating. He credited Marcuse with developing "logically and psychologically the instinctual dynamic trends leading to the utopia of a nonrepressive civilization" and demonstrating that "true freedom is not possible in reality today", being reserved for "fantasies, dreams, and the experiences of art.
However, he believed Marcuse left some questions unresolved. Fingarette considered Marcuse the first to develop the idea of a utopian society free from sexual repression into a systematic philosophy. However, he noted that he used the term "repression" in a fashion that drastically changed its meaning compared to "strict psychoanalytic usage", employing it to refer to "suppression, sublimation, repression proper, and restraint".
He also questioned the accuracy of Marcuse's understanding of Freud, arguing that he was actually presenting "analyses and conclusions already worked out and accepted by Freud".
He also questioned whether his concept of "sensuous rationality" was original, and criticized him for failing to provide sufficient discussion of the Oedipus complex. He concluded that he put forward an inadequate "one-dimensional, instinctual view of man" and that his proposed non-repressive society was a "fantasy-Utopia". Wolff considered the book a great work. He praised the "magnificent" scope of Eros and Civilization and Marcuse's "inspiring" sense of dedication. He noted that the book could be criticized for Marcuse's failure to answer certain questions and for some "omissions and obscurities", but considered these points to be "of minor importance.
Celarent credited Marcuse with using psychoanalysis to transform Marx's concept of alienation into "a more subtle psychological construct", the "performance principle". In Celarent's view, it anticipated arguments later made by the philosopher Michel Foucault , but with "a far more plausible historical mechanism" than Foucault's "nebulous" concept of discourse.
However, Celarent considered Marcuse's chapter giving "proper Freudian reasons for the historicity of the reality principle" to be of historical interest only, and wrote that Marcuse proposed a "shadowy utopia". Celarent suggested that Eros and Civilization had commonly been misinterpreted, and that Marcuse was not concerned with advocating "free love and esoteric sexual positions.
Fred Alford. Jay described the book as one of Marcuse's major works, and his "most utopian" book. He maintained that it completed Marcuse's "theory of remembrance", according to which "memory subverts one-dimensional consciousness and opens up the possibility of an alternative future", and helped Marcuse advance a form of critical theory no longer able to rely on revolutionary proletariat.
However, he criticized Marcuse's theory for its "undefined identification of individual and collective memory", writing that Marcuse failed to explain how the individual was in "archaic identity with the species". He suggested that there might be an affinity between Marcuse's views and Jung's, despite Marcuse's contempt for Jung. He criticized Marcuse for his failure to undertake experiments in personal recollection such as those performed by the philosopher Walter Benjamin , or to rigorously investigate the differences between personal memory of an actual event in a person's life and collective historical memory of events antedating all living persons.
Jay suggested that the views of the philosopher Ernst Bloch might be superior to Marcuse's, since they did more to account for "the new in history" and more carefully avoided equating recollection with repetition. Chodorow considered the work of Marcuse and Brown important and maintained that it helped suggest a better psychoanalytic social theory. However, she questioned their interpretations of Freud, argued that they see social relations as an unnecessary form of constraint and fail to explain how social bonds and political activity are possible, criticized their view of "women, gender relations, and generation", and maintained that their use of primary narcissism as a model for union with others involves too much concern with individual gratification.
She argued that Eros and Civilization shows some of the same features that Marcuse criticized in Brown's Love's Body , that the form of psychoanalytic theory Marcuse endorsed undermines his social analysis, and that in his distinction between surplus and basic repression, Marcuse did not evaluate what the full effects of the latter might be in a society without domination.
She praised parts of the work, such as his chapter on "The Transformation of Sexuality into Eros", but maintained that in some ways it conflicted with Marcuse's Marxism. She criticized Marcuse's account of repression, noting that he used the term in a "metaphoric" fashion that eliminated the distinction between the conscious and the unconscious, and argued that his "conception of instinctual malleability" conflicted with his proposal for a "new reality principle" based on the drives and made his critique of Fromm and neo-Freudianism disingenuous, and that Marcuse "simply asserted a correspondence between society and personality organization".
Alford, writing in , noted that Marcuse, like many of his critics, regarded Eros and Civilization as his most important work, but observed that Marcuse's views have been criticized for being both too similar and too different to those of Freud. He wrote that recent scholarship broadly agreed with Marcuse that social changes since Freud's era have changed the character of psychopathology, for example by increasing the number of narcissistic personality disorders.
He credited Marcuse with showing that narcissism is a "potentially emancipatory force", but argued that while Marcuse anticipated some subsequent developments in the theory of narcissism, they nevertheless made it necessary to reevaluate Marcuse's views. He maintained that Marcuse misinterpreted Freud's views on sublimation and noted that aspects of Marcuse's "erotic utopia" seem regressive or infantile, as they involved instinctual gratification for its own sake.
Though agreeing with Chodorow that this aspect of Marcuse's work is related to his "embrace of narcissism", he denied that narcissism serves only regressive needs, and argued that "its regressive potential may be transformed into the ground of mature autonomy, which recognizes the rights and needs of others. Other discussions of the work include those by the philosopher Jeremy Shearmur in Philosophy of the Social Sciences ,  the philosopher Timothy F.
Murphy in the Journal of Homosexuality ,  C. Farr, the philosopher Douglas Kellner , Andrew T. Shearmur identified the historian Russell Jacoby 's criticism of psychoanalytic "revisionism" in his work Social Amnesia as a reworking of Marcuse's criticism of neo-Freudianism. He also maintained that Marcuse's misinterpretation of Freud's concept of reason undermined Marcuse's argument, which privileged a confused concept of instinct over an ambiguous sense of reason.
She endorsed Marcuse's criticisms of Fromm and Horney, but maintained that Marcuse underestimated the force of Freud's pessimism and neglected Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle Cho compared Marcuse's views to those of the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan , writing that the similarities between them were less well known than the differences. Adorno , Marcuse failed to "take temporality and transience properly into account" and had "no genuine appreciation of the need for mourning.
Hite identified the book as an influence on Thomas Pynchon 's novel Gravity's Rainbow , finding this apparent in Pynchon's characterization of Orpheus as a figure connected with music, memory, play, and desire. She added that while Marcuse did not "appeal to mind-altering drugs as adjuncts to phantasy", many of his readers were "happy to infer a recommendation. However, he criticized Marcuse for relying on an outdated 19th-century translation of Schiller. Brown commended Eros and Civilization as the first book, following the work of Reich, to "reopen the possibility of the abolition of repression".
He saw Brown's exploration of the radical implications of psychoanalysis as in some ways more rigorous and systematic than that of Marcuse. He noted that Eros and Civilization has often been compared to Life Against Death , but suggested that it was less elegantly written. He concluded that while Marcuse's work is psychologically less radical than that of Brown, it is politically bolder, and unlike Brown's, succeeded in transforming psychoanalytic theory into historical and political categories.
He deemed Marcuse a finer theorist than Brown, believing that he provided a more substantial treatment of Freud. The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre criticized Marcuse for focusing on Freud's metapsychology rather than on psychoanalysis as a method of therapy.
He believed that Marcuse followed speculations that were difficult to either support or refute, that his discussion of sex was pompous, that he failed to explain how people whose sexuality was unrepressed would behave, and uncritically accepted Freudian views of sexuality and failed to conduct his own research into the topic.
He criticized him for his dismissive treatment of rival theories, such as those of Reich. He also suggested that Marcuse's goal of reconciling Freudian with Marxist theories might be impossible, and, comparing his views to those of the philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach , argued that by returning to the themes of the Young Hegelian movement Marcuse had retreated to a "pre-Marxist" perspective.
Phil Brown criticized Marcuse's attempt to "synthesize Marx and Freud", arguing that such a synthesis is impossible. He maintained that Marcuse neglected politics, disregarded the class struggle, advocated "sublimation of human spontaneity and creativity", and failed to criticize the underlying assumptions of Freudian thinking. Though influenced by Marcuse, he commented that Eros and Civilization was referred to surprisingly rarely in gay liberation literature. In an afterword to the edition of the book, he added that Marcuse's "radical Freudianism" was "now largely forgotten" and had never been "particularly popular in the gay movement.
The social psychologist Liam Hudson suggested that Life Against Death was neglected by radicals because its publication coincided with that of Eros and Civilization. Comparing the two works, he found Eros and Civilization more reductively political and less stimulating.
He accused Marcuse of sentimentalism. Hencken described Eros and Civilization as an important example of the intellectual influence of psychoanalysis and an "interesting precursor" to a study of psychology of the "internalization of oppression". However, he believed that aspects of the work have limited its audience. Though granting that Marcuse proposed a "powerful image of a transformed sexuality" that had a major influence on posts sexual politics, he considered Marcuse's vision "utopian".
The philosopher Jeffrey Abramson credited Marcuse with revealing the "bleakness of social life" to him and forcing him to wonder why progress does "so little to end human misery and destructiveness". However, he argued that while Marcuse recognized the difficulties of explaining how sublimation could be compatible with a new and non-repressive social order, he presented a confused account of a "sublimation without desexualization" that could make this possible.
He described some of Marcuse's speculations as bizarre, and suggested that Marcuse's "vision of Eros" is "imbalanced in the direction of the sublime" and that the "essential conservatism" of his stance on sexuality had gone unnoticed.
Frederick Goddard Tuckerman
Even though the persecution of Viennese Jews had begun immediately—Edward R. Murrow, in Vienna for CBS radio when the Germans arrived, was an eyewitness to the ransacking of Jewish homes—Freud had resisted pleas from friends that he flee. He changed his mind after his daughter Anna was arrested and interrogated by the Gestapo. He was able to get some of his family out, but he left four sisters behind. All of them died in the camps, one, of starvation, at Theresienstadt; the others, probably by gas, at Auschwitz and Treblinka.
GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies
It was the result of an interest in psychoanalysis that began when the philosopher Herbert Marcuse suggested to Brown that he should read Freud. The book became famous when Norman Podhoretz recommended it to the critic Lionel Trilling , and over fifty-thousand copies had been sold by It has been compared to works such as Marcuse's Eros and Civilization and the philosopher Michel Foucault 's Madness and Civilization , and Brown's objectives have been seen as being the same as Foucault's. Though Life Against Death has been called one of the great nonfiction works of the 20th century, some critics have found it of lesser weight than Eros and Civilization , and Brown has been criticized for misinterpreting Freud's theories. It has been suggested that, despite his objectives, Brown's arguments imply that sexual repression is biologically inevitable.
It shows how both achieved early success by positioning themselves as solutions to pressing social, economic, and political issues of the period between World War I and the New Deal. Learn About the New eReader.
Search this site. Allyson's Journal PDF. Angela PDF. Antifungals PDF. Aphakia PDF. Arianna PDF.
Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud ; second edition, is a book by the German philosopher and social critic Herbert Marcuse , in which the author proposes a non-repressive society, attempts a synthesis of the theories of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud , and explores the potential of collective memory to be a source of disobedience and revolt and point the way to an alternative future. Its title alludes to Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents The edition has an added "political preface".
Nexica, Matt Wray. Sign In or Create an Account. Advanced Search. User Tools.
Frederick Goddard Tuckerman published only one book of poetry during his lifetime, and it was a commercial and critical failure. Poems included ninety-eight poems, mostly short lyrics, more than half of which were sonnets. Tuckerman paid for the printing of the first edition himself and sent copies to many famous New England and New York writers whose approval he sought but generally failed to obtain.
Стратмор кивнул: - Совершенно. - Повисла продолжительная пауза. - Прости, что я тебе лгал. Попытка переделать Цифровую крепость - дело серьезное и хлопотное.
Сьюзан встретилась с ним взглядом и прикусила губу. - Ничего, - выдавила. Но это было не. Терминал Хейла ярко светился. Она забыла его отключить.
Только туда ей и оставалось идти в наглухо запертом помещении. Поднявшись по ступенькам, она обнаружила, что дверь в кабинет шефа открыта, поскольку электронный замок без электропитания бесполезен. Она вошла.