one-dimensional-man.md

[[!meta title="One-Dimensional Man"]]

* Author: Hebert Marcuse
* Terms: institutionalized, adjusted sublimation

## Snippets

### Intro

    From the beginning, any critical theory of society is thus confronted with the
    problem of historical objectivity, a problem which arises at the two points
    where the analysis implies value judgments:

    1. the judgment that human life is worth living, or rather can be and ought to
    be made worth living. This judgment underlies all intellectual effort; it is
    the a priori of social theory, and its rejection (which is perfectly logical)
    rejects theory itself;

    2. the judgment that, in a given society, specific possibilities exist for the
    amelioration of human life and specific ways and means of realizing these
    possibilities. Critical analysis has to demonstrate the objective validity of
    these judgments, and the demonstration has to proceed on empirical grounds. The
    established society has available an ascertainable quantity and quality of
    intellectual and material resources. How can these resources be used for the
    optimal development and satisfaction of individual needs and faculties with a
    minimum of toil and misery? Social theory is historical theory, and history is
    the realm of chance in the realm of necessity. Therefore, among the various
    possible and actual modes of organizing and utilizing the available resources,
    which ones offer the greatest chance of an optimal development?

    [...]

    The “possibilities” must be within the reach of the respective society; they
    must be definable goals of practice. By the same token, the abstraction from
    the established institutions must be expressive of an actual tendency—that is,
    their transformation must be the real need of the underlying population. Social
    theory is concerned with the historical alternatives which haunt the
    established society as subversive tendencies and forces. The values attached to
    the alternatives do become facts when they are translated into reality by
    historical practice. The theoretical concepts terminate with social change.

    But here, advanced industrial society confronts the critique with a situation
    which seems to deprive it of its very basis. Technical progress, extended to a
    whole system of domination and coordination, creates forms of life (and of
    power) which appear to reconcile the forces opposing the system and to defeat
    or refute all protest in the name of the historical prospects of freedom from
    toil and domination. Contemporary society seems to be capable of containing
    social change—qualitative change which would establish essentially different
    institutions, a new direction of the productive process, new modes of human
    existence.

    [...]

    As a technological universe, advanced industrial society is a political
    universe, the latest stage in the realization of a specific historical
    project—namely, the experience, transformation, and organization of nature as
    the mere stuff of domination.

    As the project unfolds, it shapes the entire universe of discourse and action,
    intellectual and material culture. In the medium of technology, culture,
    politics, and the economy merge into an omnipresent system which swallows up or
    repulses all alternatives. The productivity and growth potential of this system
    stabilize the society and contain technical progress within the framework of
    domination. Technological rationality has become political rationality.

### Freedom in negative terms

    Contemporary industrial civilization demonstrates that it has reached the stage
    at which “the free society” can no longer be adequately defined in the
    traditional terms of economic, political, and intellectual liberties, not
    because these liberties have become insignificant, but because they are too
    significant to be confined within the traditional forms. New modes of
    realization are needed, corresponding to the new capabilities of society.

    Such new modes can be indicated only in negative terms because they would
    amount to the negation of the prevailing modes. Thus economic freedom would
    mean freedom from the economy—from being controlled by economic forces and
    relationships; freedom from the daily struggle for existence, from earning a
    living. Political freedom would mean liberation of the individuals from
    politics over which they have no effective control. Similarly, intellectual
    freedom would mean the restoration of individual thought now absorbed by mass
    communication and indoctrination, abolition of “public opinion” together with
    its makers. The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of
    their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their
    realization. The most effective and enduring form of warfare against liberation
    is the implanting of material and intellectual needs that perpetuate obsolete
    forms of the struggle for existence.

    The intensity, the satisfaction and even the character of human needs, beyond
    the biological level, have always been preconditioned. Whether or not the
    possibility of doing or leaving, enjoying or destroying, possessing or
    rejecting something is seized as a need depends on whether or not it can be
    seen as desirable and necessary for the prevailing societal institutions and
    interests. In this sense, human needs are historical needs and, to the extent
    to which the society demands the repressive development of the individual, his
    needs themselves and their claim for satisfaction are subject to overriding
    critical standards.

### The irrationality of the rational

    We are again confronted with one of the most vexing aspects of advanced
    industrial civilization: the rational character of its irrationality. Its
    productivity and efficiency, its capacity to increase and spread comforts, to
    turn waste into need, and destruction into construction, the extent to which
    this civilization transforms the object world into an extension of man’s mind
    and body makes the very notion of alienation questionable.

    [...]

    But in the contemporary period, the technological controls appear to be the
    very embodiment of Reason for the benefit of all social groups and interests—to
    such an extent that all contradiction seems irrational and all counteraction
    impossible.

    No wonder then that, in the most advanced areas of this civilization, the
    social controls have been introjected to the point where even individual
    protest is affected at its roots. The intellectual and emotional refusal “to go
    along” appears neurotic and impotent.

    [...]

    But the term “introjection” perhaps no longer describes the way in which the
    individual by himself reproduces and perpetuates the external controls
    exercised by his society. Introjection suggests a variety of relatively
    spontaneous processes by which a Self (Ego) transposes the “outer” into the
    “inner.” Thus introjection implies the existence of an inner dimension
    distinguished from and even antagonistic to the external exigencies—an
    individual consciousness and an individual unconscious apart from public
    opinion and behavior.3 The idea of “inner freedom” here has its reality: it
    designates the private space in which man may become and remain “himself.”

    Today this private space has been invaded and whittled down by technological
    reality. Mass production and mass distribution claim the entire individual, and
    industrial psychology has long since ceased to be confined to the factory. The
    manifold processes of introjection seem to be ossified in almost mechanical
    reactions. The result is, not adjustment but mimesis: an immediate
    identification of the individual with his society and, through it, with the
    society as a whole.

### One-dimensionality

    Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behavior in which ideas,
    aspirations, and objectives that, by their content, transcend the established
    universe of discourse and action are either repelled or reduced to terms of
    this universe. They are redefined by the rationality of the given system and of
    its quantitative extension.

    The trend may be related to a development in scientific method: operationalism
    in the physical, behaviorism in the social sciences. The common feature is a
    total empiricism in the treatment of concepts; their meaning is restricted to
    the representation of particular operations and behavior. The operational point
    of view is well illustrated by P. W. Bridgman’s analysis of the concept of
    length:5

        We evidently know what we mean by length if we can tell what the length of any
        and every object is, and for the physicist nothing more is required. To find
        the length of an object, we have to perform certain physical operations. The
        concept of length is therefore fixed when the operations by which length is
        measured are fixed: that is, the concept of length involves as much and nothing
        more than the set of operations by which length is determined. In general, we
        mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is
        synonymous with the corresponding set of operations.

    Bridgman has seen the wide implications of this mode of thought for the society
    at large:6

        To adopt the operational point of view involves much more than a mere
        restriction of the sense in which we understand ‘concept,’ but means a
        far-reaching change in all our habits of thought, in that we shall no longer
        permit ourselves to use as tools in our thinking concepts of which we cannot
        give an adequate account in terms of operations.

    Bridgman’s prediction has come true. The new mode of thought is today the
    predominant tendency in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and other fields.
    Many of the most seriously troublesome concepts are being “eliminated” by
    showing that no adequate account of them in terms of operations or behavior can
    be given.

    [...]

    Outside the academic establishment, the “far-reaching change in all our habits
    of thought” is more serious. It serves to coordinate ideas and goals with those
    exacted by the prevailing system, to enclose them in the system, and to repel
    those which are irreconcilable with the system. The reign of such a
    one-dimensional reality does not mean that materialism rules, and that the
    spiritual, metaphysical, and bohemian occupations are petering out. On the
    contrary, there is a great deal of “Worship together this week,” “Why not try
    God,” Zen, existentialism, and beat ways of life, etc. But such modes of
    protest and transcendence are no longer contradictory to the status quo and no
    longer negative. They are rather the ceremonial part of practical behaviorism,
    its harmless negation, and are quickly digested by the status quo as part of
    its healthy diet.

    [...]

    Such limitation of thought is certainly not new. Ascending modern rationalism,
    in its speculative as well as empirical form, shows a striking contrast between
    extreme critical radicalism in scientific and philosophic method on the one
    hand, and an uncritical quietism in the attitude toward established and
    functioning social institutions. Thus Descartes’ ego cogitans was to leave the
    “great public bodies” untouched, and Hobbes held that “the present ought always
    to be preferred, maintained, and accounted best.” Kant agreed with Locke in
    justifying revolution if and when it has succeeded in organizing the whole and
    in preventing subversion.

### Progress, abolition of labor, totalitarianism

    The society bars a whole type of oppositional operations and behavior;
    consequently, the concepts pertaining to them are rendered illusory or
    meaningless. Historical transcendence appears as metaphysical transcendence,
    not acceptable to science and scientific thought. The operational and
    behavioral point of view, practiced as a “habit of thought” at large, becomes
    the view of the established universe of discourse and action, needs and
    aspirations.

    “Progress” is not a neutral term; it moves toward specific ends, and these ends
    are defined by the possibilities of ameliorating the human condition. Advanced
    industrial society is approaching the stage where continued progress would
    demand the radical subversion of the prevailing direction and organization of
    progress. This stage would be reached when material production (including the
    necessary services) becomes automated to the extent that all vital needs can be
    satisfied while necessary labor time is reduced to marginal time. From this
    point on, technical progress would transcend the realm of necessity, where it
    served as the instrument of domination and exploitation which thereby limited
    its rationality; technology would become subject to the free play of faculties
    in the struggle for the pacification of nature and of society.

    Such a state is envisioned in Marx’s notion of the “abolition of labor.” The
    term “pacification of existence” seems better suited to designate the
    historical alternative of a world which—through an international conflict which
    transforms and suspends the contradictions within the established
    societies—advances on the brink of a global war. “Pacification of existence”
    means the development of man’s struggle with man and with nature, under
    conditions where the competing needs, desires, and aspirations are no longer
    organized by vested interests in domination and scarcity—an organization which
    perpetuates the destructive forms of this struggle.

    Today’s fight against this historical alternative finds a firm mass basis in
    the underlying population, and finds its ideology in the rigid orientation of
    thought and behavior to the given universe of facts. Validated by the
    accomplishments of science and technology, justified by its growing
    productivity, the status quo defies all transcendence. Faced with the
    possibility of pacification on the grounds of its technical and intellectual
    achievements, the mature industrial society closes itself against this
    alternative. Operationalism, in theory and practice, becomes the theory and
    practice of containment. Underneath its obvious dynamics, this society is a
    thoroughly static system of life: self-propelling in its oppressive
    productivity and in its beneficial coordination. Containment of technical
    progress goes hand in hand with its growth in the established direction. In
    spite of the political fetters imposed by the status quo, the more technology
    appears capable of creating the conditions for pacification, the more are the
    minds and bodies of man organized against this alternative.

    The most advanced areas of industrial society exhibit throughout these two
    features: a trend toward consummation of technological rationality, and
    intensive efforts to contain this trend within the established institutions.
    Here is the internal contradiction of this civilization: the irrational element
    in its rationality. It is the token of its achievements. The industrial society
    which makes technology and science its own is organized for the
    ever-more-effective domination of man and nature, for the ever-more-effective
    utilization of its resources. It becomes irrational when the success of these
    efforts opens new dimensions of human realization. Organization for peace is
    different from organization for war; the institutions which served the struggle
    for existence cannot serve the pacification of existence. Life as an end is
    qualitatively different from life as a means.

    [...]

    Qualitative change also involves a change in the technical basis on which this
    society rests—one which sustains the economic and political institutions
    through which the “second nature” of man as an aggressive object of
    administration is stabilized.

    [...]

    To be sure, labor must precede the reduction of labor, and industrialization
    must precede the development of human needs and satisfactions. But as all
    freedom depends on the conquest of alien necessity, the realization of freedom
    depends on the techniques of this conquest. The highest productivity of labor
    can be used for the perpetuation of labor, and the most efficient
    industrialization can serve the restriction and manipulation of needs.

    When this point is reached, domination—in the guise of affluence and
    liberty—extends to all spheres of private and public existence, integrates all
    authentic opposition, absorbs all alternatives. Technological rationality
    reveals its political character as it becomes the great vehicle of better
    domination, creating a truly totalitarian universe in which society and nature,
    mind and body are kept in a state of permanent mobilization for the defense of
    this universe.

### Revolution

    The classical Marxian theory envisages the transition from capitalism to
    socialism as a political revolution: the proletariat destroys the political
    apparatus of capitalism but retains the technological apparatus, subjecting it
    to socialization. There is continuity in the revolution: technological
    rationality, freed from irrational restrictions and destructions, sustains and
    consummates itself in the new society. It is interesting to read a Soviet
    Marxist statement on this continuity, which is of such vital importance for the
    notion of socialism as the determinate negation of capitalism

    [...]

    To be sure, Marx held that organization and direction of the productive
    apparatus by the “immediate producers” would introduce a qualitative change in
    the technical continuity: namely, production toward the satisfaction of freely
    developing individual needs. However, to the degree to which the established
    technical apparatus engulfs the public and private existence in all spheres of
    society—that is, becomes the medium of control and cohesion in a political
    universe which incorporates the laboring classes—to that degree would the
    qualitative change involve a change in the technological structure itself. And
    such change would presuppose that the laboring classes are alienated from this
    universe in their very existence, that their consciousness is that of the total
    impossibility to continue to exist in this universe, so that the need for
    qualitative change is a matter of life and death. Thus, the negation exists
    prior to the change itself, the notion that the liberating historical forces
    develop within the established society is a cornerstone of Marxian theory.2

### Hell

    Those whose life is the hell of the Affluent Society are kept in line by a
    brutality which revives medieval and early modern practices. For the other,
    less underprivileged people, society takes care of the need for liberation by
    satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even
    unnoticeable, and it accomplishes this fact in the process of production
    itself.

### Automation

    (1) Mechanization is increasingly reducing the quantity and intensity of physical
    energy expended in labor. This evolution is of great bearing on the Marxian
    concept of the worker (proletarian). To Marx, the proletarian is primarily the
    manual laborer who expends and exhausts his physical energy in the work
    process, even if he works with machines. The purchase and use of this physical
    energy, under subhuman conditions, for the private appropriation of
    surplus-value entailed the revolting inhuman aspects of exploitation; the
    Marxian notion denounces the physical pain and misery of labor. This is the
    material, tangible element in wage slavery and alienation—the physiological and
    biological dimension of classical capitalism.

        “Pendant les siècles passés, une cause importante d’aliénation résidait dans le
        fait que l’être humain prêtait son individualité biologique à l’organisation
        technique: il était porteur d’outils; les ensembles techniques ne pouvaient se
        constituer qu’en incorporant l’homme comme porteur d’outils. Le caractère
        déformant de la profession était à la fois psychique et somatique.”3

        3. “During the past centuries, one important reason for alienation was that the
        human being lent his biological individuality to the technical apparatus: he
        was the bearer of tools; technical units could not be established without
        incorporating man as bearer of tools into them. The nature of this occupation
        was such that it was both psychologically and physiologically deforming in its
        effect.” Gilbert Simondon, Du Mode d’existence des objets techniques (Paris:
        Aubier, 1958), p. 103, note.

    Now the ever-more-complete mechanization of labor in advanced capitalism, while
    sustaining exploitation, modifies the attitude and the status of the exploited.
    Within the technological ensemble, mechanized work in which automatic and
    semi-automatic reactions fill the larger part (if not the whole) of labor time
    remains, as a life-long occupation, exhausting, stupefying, inhuman
    slavery—even more exhausting because of increased speed-up, control of the
    machine operators (rather than of the product), and isolation of the workers
    from each other.4 To be sure, this form of drudgery is expressive of arrested,
    partial automation, of the coexistence of automated, semi-automated, and
    non-automated sections within the same plant, but even under these conditions,
    “for muscular fatigue technology has substituted tension and/or mental
    effort.”5 For the more advanced automated plants, the transformation of
    physical energy into technical and mental skills is emphasized:

        “… skills of the head rather than of the hand, of the logician rather than the
        craftsman; of nerve rather than muscle; of the pilot rather than the manual
        worker; of the maintenance man rather than the operator.”6

    This kind of masterly enslavement is not essentially different from that of the
    typist, the bank teller, the high-pressure salesman or saleswoman, and the
    television announcer. Standardization and the routine assimilate productive and
    non-productive jobs. The proletarian of the previous stages of capitalism was
    indeed the beast of burden, by the labor of his body procuring the necessities
    and luxuries of life while living in filth and poverty. Thus he was the living
    denial of his society.7 In contrast, the organized worker in the advanced areas
    of the technological society lives this denial less conspicuously and, like the
    other human objects of the social division of labor, he is being incorporated
    into the technological community of the administered population. Moreover, in
    the most successful areas of automation, some sort of technological community
    seems to integrate the human atoms at work. The machine seems to instill some
    drugging rhythm in the operators:

        “It is generally agreed that interdependent motions performed by a group of
        persons which follow a rhythmic pattern yield satisfaction—quite apart from
        what is being accomplished by the motions”;8 and the sociologist-observer
        believes this to be a reason for the gradual development of a “general climate”
        more “favorable both to production and to certain important kinds of human
        satisfaction.” He speaks of the “growth of a strong in-group feeling in each
        crew” and quotes one worker as stating: “All in all we are in the swing of
        things …”9

    The phrase admirably expresses the change in mechanized enslavement:
    things swing rather than oppress, and they swing the human instrument—not only
    its body but also its mind and even its soul. A remark by Sartre elucidates the
    depth of the process:

        “Aux premiers temps des machines semi-automatiques, des enquêtes ont montré que
        les ouvrières spécialisées se laissaient aller, en travaillant, à une rêverie
        d’ordre sexuel, elles se rappellaient la chambre, le lit, la nuit, tout ce qui
        ne concerne que la personne dans la solitude du couple fermé sur soi. Mais
        c’est la machine en elle qui rêvait de caresses.…”10 The machine process in the
        technological universe breaks the innermost privacy of freedom and joins
        sexuality and labor in one unconscious, rhythmic automatism—a process which
        parallels the assimilation of jobs.10

        10. “Shortly after semi-automatic machines were introduced, investigations
        showed that female skilled workers would allow themselves to lapse while
        working into a sexual kind of daydream; they would recall the bedroom, the bed,
        the night and all that concerns only the person within the solitude of the
        couple alone with itself. But it was the machine in her which was dreaming of
        caresses …” Jean-Paul Sartre, Critique de la raison dialectique, tome I (Paris:
        Gallimard, 1960), p. 290.

    The machine process in the technological universe breaks the innermost privacy
    of freedom and joins sexuality and labor in one unconscious, rhythmic
    automatism—a process which parallels the assimilation of jobs.

    [...]

    (2) The assimilating trend shows forth in the occupational stratification. In
    the key industrial establishments, the “blue-collar” work force declines in
    relation to the “white-collar” element; the number of non-production workers
    increases.11 This quantitative change refers back to a change in the character
    of the basic instruments of production.12 At the advanced stage of
    mechanization, as part of the technological reality, the machine is not

    “une unité absolue, mais seulement une réalité technique individualisée,
    ouverte selon deux voies: celle de la relation aux éléments, et celle des
    relations interindividuelles dans l’ensemble technique.”13

    13. “an absolute unity, but only an individualized technical reality open in
    two directions, that of the relation to the elements and that of the relation
    among the individuals in the technical whole.” Gilbert Simondon, loc. cit., p.
    146.

    [...]

    To the extent to which the machine becomes itself a system of mechanical tools
    and relations and thus extends far beyond the individual work process, it
    asserts its larger dominion by reducing the “professional autonomy” of the
    laborer and integrating him with other professions which suffer and direct the
    technical ensemble. To be sure, the former “professional” autonomy of the
    laborer was rather his professional enslavement. But this specific mode of
    enslavement was at the same time the source of his specific, professional power
    of negation—the power to stop a process which threatened him with annihilation
    as a human being. Now the laborer is losing the professional autonomy which
    made him a member of a class set off from the other occupational groups because
    it embodied the refutation of the established society.

    The technological change which tends to do away with the machine as individual
    instrument of production, as “absolute unit,” seems to cancel the Marxian
    notion of the “organic composition of capital” and with it the theory of the
    creation of surplus value. According to Marx, the machine never creates value
    but merely transfers its own value to the product, while surplus value remains
    the result of the exploitation of living labor. The machine is embodiment of
    human labor power, and through it, past labor (dead labor) preserves itself and
    determines living labor. Now automation seems to alter qualitatively the
    relation between dead and living labor; it tends toward the point where
    productivity is determined “by the machines, and not by the individual
    output.”14 Moreover, the very measurement of individual output becomes
    impossible:

        “Automation in its largest sense means, in effect, the end of measurement of
        work.… With automation, you can’t measure output of a single man; you now have
        to measure simply equipment utilization. If that is generalized as a kind of
        concept … there is no longer, for example, any reason at all to pay a man by
        the piece or pay him by the hour,” that is to say, there is no more reason to
        keep up the “dual pay system” of salaries and wages.”15

    Daniel Bell, the author of this report, goes further; he links this
    technological change to the historical system of industrialization itself: the
    meaning of industrialization did not arise with the introduction of factories,
    it “arose out of the measurement of work. It’s when work can be measured, when
    you can hitch a man to the job, when you can put a harness on him, and measure
    his output in terms of a single piece and pay him by the piece or by the hour,
    that you have got modern industrialization.”16

### Servitude

    (4) The new technological work-world thus enforces a weakening of the negative
    position of the working class: the latter no longer appears to be the living
    contradiction to the established society. This trend is strengthened by the
    effect of the technological organization of production on the other side of the
    fence: on management and direction. Domination is transfigured into
    administration.21 The capitalist bosses and owners are losing their identity as
    responsible agents; they are assuming the function of bureaucrats in a
    corporate machine. Within the vast hierarchy of executive and managerial boards
    extending far beyond the individual establishment into the scientific
    laboratory and research institute, the national government and national
    purpose, the tangible source of exploitation disappears behind the façade of
    objective rationality. Hatred and frustration are deprived of their specific
    target, and the technological veil conceals the reproduction of inequality and
    enslavement.22 With technical progress as its instrument, unfreedom—in the
    sense of man’s subjection to his productive apparatus—is perpetuated and
    intensified in the form of many liberties and comforts. The novel feature is
    the overwhelming rationality in this irrational enterprise, and the depth of
    the preconditioning which shapes the instinctual drives and aspirations of the
    individuals and obscures the difference between false and true consciousness.
    For in reality, neither the utilization of administrative rather than physical
    controls (hunger, personal dependence, force), nor the change in the character
    of heavy work, nor the assimilation of occupational classes, nor the
    equalization in the sphere of consumption compensate for the fact that the
    decisions over life and death, over personal and national security are made at
    places over which the individuals have no control. The slaves of developed
    industrial civilization are sublimated slaves, but they are slaves, for slavery
    is determined

        “pas par l’obéissance, ni par la rudesse des labeurs, mais par le statu
        d’instrument et la réduction de l’homme à l’état de chose.”23

        23. “neither by obedience nor by hardness of labor but by the status of being a
        mere instrument, and the reduction of man to the state of a thing.” François
        Perroux, La Coexistence pacifique, (Paris, Presses Universitaires, 1958), vol.
        III, p. 600.

    This is the pure form of servitude: to exist as an instrument, as a thing. And
    this mode of existence is not abrogated if the thing is animated and chooses
    its material and intellectual food, if it does not feel its being-a-thing, if
    it is a pretty, clean, mobile thing. Conversely, as reification tends to become
    totalitarian by virtue of its technological form, the organizers and
    administrators themselves become increasingly dependent on the machinery which
    they organize and administer. And this mutual dependence is no longer the
    dialectical relationship between Master and Servant, which has been broken in
    the struggle for mutual recognition, but rather a vicious circle which encloses
    both the Master and the Servant. Do the technicians rule, or is their rule that
    of the others, who rely on the technicians as their planners and executors?

    [...]

    A vicious circle seems indeed the proper image of a society which is
    self-expanding and self-perpetuating in its own preestablished direction—driven
    by the growing needs which it generates and, at the same time, contains.

### Culture

    The greatness of a free literature and art, the ideals of humanism, the sorrows
    and joys of the individual, the fulfillment of the personality are important
    items in the competitive struggle between East and West. They speak heavily
    against the present forms of communism, and they are daily administered and
    sold. The fact that they contradict the society which sells them does not
    count. Just as people know or feel that advertisements and political platforms
    must not be necessarily true or right, and yet hear and read them and even let
    themselves be guided by them, so they accept the traditional values and make
    them part of their mental equipment. If mass communications blend together
    harmoniously, and often unnoticeably, art, politics, religion, and philosophy
    with commercials, they bring these realms of culture to their common
    denominator—the commodity form. The music of the soul is also the music of
    salesmanship. Exchange value, not truth value counts. On it centers the
    rationality of the status quo, and all alien rationality is bent to it.

    As the great words of freedom and fulfillment are pronounced by campaigning
    leaders and politicians, on the screens and radios and stages, they turn into
    meaningless sounds which obtain meaning only in the context of propaganda,
    business, discipline, and relaxation. This assimilation of the ideal with
    reality testifies to the extent to which the ideal has been surpassed. It is
    brought down from the sublimated realm of the soul or the spirit or the inner
    man, and translated into operational terms and problems. Here are the
    progressive elements of mass culture. The perversion is indicative of the fact
    that advanced industrial society is confronted with the possibility of a
    materialization of ideals. The capabilities of this society are progressively
    reducing the sublimated realm in which the condition of man was represented,
    idealized, and indicted. Higher culture becomes part of the material culture.
    In this transformation, it loses the greater part of its truth.

    [...]

    Domination has its own aesthetics, and democratic domination has its democratic
    aesthetics. It is good that almost everyone can now have the fine arts at his
    fingertips, by just turning a knob on his set, or by just stepping into his
    drugstore. In this diffusion, however, they become cogs in a culture-machine
    which remakes their content.

    [...]

    Obviously, the physical transformation of the world entails the mental
    transformation of its symbols, images, and ideas. Obviously, when cities and
    highways and National Parks replace the villages, valleys, and forests; when
    motorboats race over the lakes and planes cut through the skies—then these
    areas lose their character as a qualitatively different reality, as areas of
    contradiction.

    And since contradiction is the work of the Logos—rational confrontation of
    “that which is not” with “that which is”—it must have a medium of
    communication. The struggle for this medium, or rather the struggle against its
    absorption into the predominant one-dimensionality, shows forth in the
    avant-garde efforts to create an estrangement which would make the artistic
    truth again communicable.

    Bertolt Brecht has sketched the theoretical foundations for these efforts. The
    total character of the established society confronts the playwright with the
    question of whether it is still possible to “represent the contemporary world
    in the theater”—that is, represent it in such a manner that the spectator
    recognizes the truth which the play is to convey. Brecht answers that the
    contemporary world can be thus represented only if it is represented as subject
    to change3—as the state of negativity which is to be negated. This is doctrine
    which has to be learned, comprehended, and acted upon; but the theater is and
    ought to be entertainment, pleasure. However, entertainment and learning are
    not opposites; entertainment may be the most effective mode of learning. To
    teach what the contemporary world really is behind the ideological and material
    veil, and how it can be changed, the theater must break the spectator’s
    identification with the events on the stage.
    Not empathy and feeling, but distance and reflection are required. The
    “estrangement-effect” (Verfremdungseffekt) is to produce this dissociation in
    which the world can be recognized as what it is. “The things of everyday life
    are lifted out of the realm of the self-evident.…”4 “That which is ‘natural’
    must assume the features of the extraordinary. Only in this manner can the laws
    of cause and effect reveal themselves.”5

    [...]

    The efforts to recapture the Great Refusal in the language of literature suffer
    the fate of being absorbed by what they refute. As modern classics, the
    avant-garde and the beatniks share in the function of entertaining without
    endangering the good conscience of the men of good will. This absorption is
    justified by technical progress; the refusal is refuted by the alleviation of
    misery in the advanced industrial society. The liquidation of high culture is a
    byproduct of the conquest of nature, and of the progressing conquest of
    scarcity.

    Invalidating the cherished images of transcendence by incorporating them into
    its omnipresent daily reality, this society testifies to the extent to which
    insoluble conflicts are becoming manageable—to which tragedy and romance,
    archetypal dreams and anxieties are being made susceptible to technical
    solution and dissolution. The psychiatrist takes care of the Don Juans, Romeos,
    Hamlets, Fausts, as he takes care of Oedipus—he cures them. The rulers of the
    world are losing their metaphysical features. Their appearance on television,
    at press conferences, in parliament, and at public hearings is hardly suitable
    for drama beyond that of the advertisement,14 while the consequences of their
    actions surpass the scope of the drama.

### Adjusted desublimation

    In contrast to the pleasures of adjusted desublimation, sublimation preserves
    the consciousness of the renunciations which the repressive society inflicts
    upon the individual, and thereby preserves the need for liberation. To be sure,
    all sublimation is enforced by the power of society, but the unhappy
    consciousness of this power already breaks through alienation. To be sure, all
    sublimation accepts the social barrier to instinctual gratification, but it
    also transgresses this barrier.

    The Superego, in censoring the unconscious and in implanting conscience, also
    censors the censor because the developed conscience registers the forbidden
    evil act not only in the individual but also in his society. Conversely, loss
    of conscience due to the satisfactory liberties granted by an unfree society
    makes for a happy consciousness which facilitates acceptance of the misdeeds of
    this society. It is the token of declining autonomy and comprehension.
    Sublimation demands a high degree of autonomy and comprehension; it is
    mediation between the conscious and the unconscious, between the primary and
    secondary processes, between the intellect and instinct, renunciation and
    rebellion. In its most accomplished modes, such as in the artistic oeuvre,
    sublimation becomes the cognitive power which defeats suppression while bowing
    to it.

    In the light of the cognitive function of this mode of sublimation, the
    desublimation rampant in advanced industrial society reveals its truly
    conformist function. This liberation of sexuality (and of aggressiveness) frees
    the instinctual drives from much of the unhappiness and discontent that
    elucidate the repressive power of the established universe of satisfaction. To
    be sure, there is pervasive unhappiness, and the happy consciousness is shaky
    enough—a thin surface over fear, frustration, and disgust. This unhappiness
    lends itself easily to political mobilization; without room for conscious
    development, it may become the instinctual reservoir for a new fascist way of
    life and death. But there are many ways in which the unhappiness beneath the
    happy consciousness may be turned into a source of strength and cohesion for
    the social order. The conflicts of the unhappy individual now seem far more
    amenable to cure than those which made for Freud’s “discontent in
    civilization,” and they seem more adequately defined in terms of the “neurotic
    personality of our time” than in terms of the eternal struggle between Eros and
    Thanatos.

    [...]

    In accordance with the terminology used in the later works of Freud: sexuality
    as “specialized” partial drive; Eros as that of the entire organism.

### Crust

    In this general necessity, guilt has no place. One man can give the signal that
    liquidates hundreds and thousands of people, then declare himself free from all
    pangs of conscience, and live happily ever after. The antifascist powers who
    beat fascism on the battlefields reap the benefits of the Nazi scientists,
    generals, and engineers; they have the historical advantage of the late-comer.
    What begins as the horror of the concentration camps turns into the practice of
    training people for abnormal conditions—a subterranean human existence and the
    daily intake of radioactive nourishment. A Christian minister declares that it
    does not contradict Christian principles to prevent with all available means
    your neighbor from entering your bomb shelter. Another Christian minister
    contradicts his colleague and says it does. Who is right? Again, the neutrality
    of technological rationality shows forth over and above politics, and again it
    shows forth as spurious, for in both cases, it serves the politics of
    domination.

    [...]

    It seems that even the most hideous transgressions can be repressed in such a
    manner that, for all practical purposes, they have ceased to be a danger for
    society. Or, if their eruption leads to functional disturbances in the
    individual (as in the case of one Hiroshima pilot), it does not disturb the
    functioning of society. A mental hospital manages the disturbance.

### Game

    The Happy Consciousness has no limits—it arranges games with death and
    disfiguration in which fun, team work, and strategic importance mix in
    rewarding social harmony. The Rand Corporation, which unites scholarship,
    research, the military, the climate, and the good life, reports such games in a
    style of absolving cuteness, in its “RANDom News,” volume 9, number 1, under
    the heading BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY. The rockets are rattling, the H-bomb is
    waiting, and the space-flights are flying, and the problem is “how to guard the
    nation and the free world.” In all this, the military planners are worried, for
    “the cost of taking chances, of experimenting and making a mistake, may be
    fearfully high.” But here RAND comes in; RAND relieves, and “devices like
    RAND’S SAFE come into the picture.” The picture into which they come is
    unclassified. It is a picture in which “the world becomes a map, missiles
    merely symbols [long live the soothing power of symbolism!], and wars just
    [just] plans and calculations written down on paper …” In this picture, RAND
    has transfigured the world into an interesting technological game, and one can
    relax—the “military planners can gain valuable ‘synthetic’ experience without
    risk.”

    PLAYING THE GAME

    To understand the game one should participate, for understanding is “in the
    experience.”

    Because SAFE players have come from almost every department at RAND as well as
    the Air Force, we might find a physicist, an engineer, and an economist on the
    Blue team. The Red team will represent a similar cross-section.

    The first day is taken up by a joint briefing on what the game is all about and
    a study of the rules. When the teams are finally seated around the maps in
    their respective rooms the game begins. Each team receives its policy statement
    from the Game Director. These statements, usually prepared by a member of the
    Control Group, give an estimate of the world situation at the time of playing,
    some information on the policy of the opposing team, the objectives to be met
    by the team, and the team’s budget. (The policies are changed for each game to
    explore a wide range of strategic possibilities.)

### Guilt

    Obviously, in the realm of the Happy Consciousness, guilt feeling has no place,
    and the calculus takes care of conscience. When the whole is at stake, there is
    no crime except that of rejecting the whole, or not defending it. Crime, guilt,
    and guilt feeling become a private affair. Freud revealed in the psyche of the
    individual the crimes of mankind, in the individual case history the history of
    the whole. This fatal link is successfully suppressed. Those who identify
    themselves with the whole, who are installed as the leaders and defenders of
    the whole can make mistakes, but they cannot do wrong—they are not guilty. They
    may become guilty again when this identification no longer holds, when they are
    gone.

### The Happy Conciousness

    The Happy Consciousness—the belief that the real is rational and that the
    system delivers the goods—reflects the new conformism which is a facet of
    technological rationality translated into social behavior.

### Language, memory and history

    The unified, functional language is an irreconcilably anti-critical and
    anti-dialectical language. In it, operational and behavioral rationality
    absorbs the transcendent, negative, oppositional elements of Reason.

    I shall discuss17 these elements in terms of the tension between the “is” and
    the “ought,” between essence and appearance, potentiality and
    actuality—ingression of the negative in the positive determinations of logic.
    This sustained tension permeates the two-dimensional universe of discourse
    which is the universe of critical, abstract thought. The two dimensions are
    antagonistic to each other; the reality partakes of both of them, and the
    dialectical concepts develop the real contradictions. In its own development,
    dialectical thought came to comprehend the historical character of the
    contradictions and the process of their mediation as historical process. Thus
    the “other” dimension of thought appeared to be historical dimension—the
    potentiality as historical possibility, its realization as historical event.

    The suppresssion of this dimension in the societal universe of operational
    rationality is a suppression of history, and this is not an academic but a
    political affair. It is suppression of the society’s own past—and of its
    future, inasmuch as this future invokes the qualitative change, the negation of
    the present. A universe of discourse in which the categories of freedom
    have become interchangeable and even identical with their opposites is not only
    practicing Orwellian or Aesopian language but is repulsing and forgetting the
    historical reality—the horror of fascism; the idea of socialism; the
    preconditions of democracy; the content of freedom. If a bureaucratic
    dictatorship rules and defines communist society, if fascist regimes are
    functioning as partners of the Free World, if the welfare program of
    enlightened capitalism is successfully defeated by labeling it “socialism,” if
    the foundations of democracy are harmoniously abrogated in democracy, then the
    old historical concepts are invalidated by up-to-date operational
    redefinitions. The redefinitions are falsifications which, imposed by the
    powers that be and the powers of fact, serve to transform falsehood into truth.

    The functional language is a radically anti-historical language: operational
    rationality has little room and little use for historical reason.18 Is this
    fight against history part of the fight against a dimension of the mind in
    which centrifugal faculties and forces might develop—faculties and forces that
    might hinder the total coordination of the individual with the society?
    Remembrance of the past may give rise to dangerous insights, and the
    established society seems to be apprehensive of the subversive contents of
    memory. Remembrance is a mode of dissociation from the given facts, a mode of
    “mediation” which breaks, for short moments, the omnipresent power of the given
    facts. Memory recalls the terror and the hope that passed. Both come to life
    again, but whereas in reality, the former recurs in ever new forms, the latter
    remains hope. And in the personal events which reappear in the individual
    memory, the fears and aspirations of mankind assert themselves—the universal in
    the particular. It is history which memory preserves. It succumbs to the
    totalitarian power of the behavioral universe

    [...]

    The closed language does not demonstrate and explain—it communicates decision,
    dictum, command. Where it defines, the definition becomes “separation of good
    from evil”; it establishes unquestionable rights and wrongs, and one value as
    justification of another value. It moves in tautologies, but the tautologies
    are terribly effective “sentences.” They pass judgment in a “prejudged form”;
    they pronounce condemnation. For example, the “objective content,” that is, the
    definition of such terms as “deviationist,” “revisionist,” is that of the penal
    code, and this sort of validation promotes a consciousness for which the
    language of the powers that be is the language of truth.24

    [...]

    As the substance of the various regimes no longer appears in alternative modes
    of life, it comes to rest in alternative techniques of manipulation and
    control. Language not only reflects these controls but becomes itself an
    instrument of control even where it does not transmit orders but information;
    where it demands, not obedience but choice, not submission but freedom.

    [...]

    What is taking place is a sweeping redefinition of thought itself, of its
    function and content. The coordination of the individual with his society
    reaches into those layers of the mind where the very concepts are elaborated
    which are designed to comprehend the established reality. These concepts are
    taken from the intellectual tradition and translated into operational terms—a
    translation which has the effect of reducing the tension between thought and
    reality by weakening the negative power of thought.

### Science and technology of domination

    The principles of modern science were a priori structured in such a way that
    they could serve as conceptual instruments for a universe of self-propelling,
    productive control; theoretical operationalism came to correspond to practical
    operationalism. The scientific method which led to the ever-more-effective
    domination of nature thus came to provide the pure concepts as well as the
    instrumentalities for the ever-more-effective domination of man by man through
    the domination of nature. Theoretical reason, remaining pure and neutral,
    entered into the service of practical reason. The merger proved beneficial to
    both. Today, domination perpetuates and extends itself not only through
    technology but as technology, and the latter provides the great legitimation of
    the expanding political power, which absorbs all spheres of culture.

    In this universe, technology also provides the great rationalization of the
    unfreedom of man and demonstrates the “technical” impossibility of being
    autonomous, of determining one’s own life. For this unfreedom appears neither
    as irrational nor as political, but rather as submission to the technical
    apparatus which enlarges the comforts of life and increases the productivity of
    labor. Technological rationality thus protects rather than cancels the
    legitimacy of domination, and the instrumentalist horizon of reason opens on a
    rationally totalitarian society:

        “One might call autocratic a philosophy of technics which takes the technical
        whole as a place where machines are used to obtain power. The machine is only a
        means; the end is the conquest of nature, the domestication of natural forces
        through a primary enslavement: The machine is a slave which serves to make
        other slaves. Such a domineering and enslaving drive may go together with the
        quest for human freedom. But it is difficult to liberate oneself by
        transferring slavery to other beings, men, animals, or machines; to rule over a
        population of machines subjecting the whole world means still to rule, and all
        rule implies acceptance of schemata of subjection.” Gilbert Simondon, Du Mode
        d’existence des objets techniques (Paris, Aubier, 1958), p. 127.

    [...]

    The incessant dynamic of technical progress has become permeated with political
    content, and the Logos of technics has been made into the Logos of continued
    servitude. The liberating force of technology—the instrumentalization of
    things—turns into a fetter of liberation; the instrumentalization of man.

    [...]

    No matter how one defines truth and objectivity, they remain related to the
    human agents of theory and practice, and to their ability to comprehend and
    change their world. This ability in turn depends on the extent to which matter
    (whatever it may be) is recognized and understood as that which it is itself in
    all particular forms. In these terms, contemporary science is of immensely
    greater objective validity than its predecessors. One might even add that, at
    present, the scientific method is the only method that can claim such validity;
    the interplay of hypotheses and observable facts validates the hypotheses and
    establishes the facts. The point which I am trying to make is that science, by
    virtue of its own method and concepts, has projected and promoted a universe in
    which the domination of nature has remained linked to the domination of man—a
    link which tends to be fatal to this universe as a whole. Nature,
    scientifically comprehended and mastered, reappears in the technical apparatus
    of production and destruction which sustains and improves the life of the
    individuals while subordinating them to the masters of the apparatus. Thus the
    rational hierarchy merges with the social one. If this is the case, then the
    change in the direction of progress, which might sever this fatal link, would
    also affect the very structure of science—the scientific project. Its
    hypotheses, without losing their rational character, would develop in an
    essentially different experimental context (that of a pacified world);
    consequently, science would arrive at essentially different concepts of nature
    and establish essentially different facts. The rational society subverts the
    idea of Reason.

    I have pointed out that the elements of this subversion, the notions of another
    rationality, were present in the history of thought from its beginning. The
    ancient idea of a state where Being attains fulfillment, where the tension
    between “is” and “ought” is resolved in the cycle of an eternal return,
    partakes of the metaphysics of domination. But it also pertains to the
    metaphysics of liberation—to the reconciliation of Logos and Eros. This idea
    envisages the coming-to-rest of the repressive productivity of Reason, the end
    of domination in gratification.

    [...]

    By way of summary, we may now try to identify more clearly the hidden subject
    of scientific rationality and the hidden ends in its pure form. The scientific
    concept of a universally controllable nature projected nature as endless
    matter-in-function, the mere stuff of theory and practice. In this form, the
    object-world entered the construction of a technological universe—a universe of
    mental and physical instrumentalities, means in themselves. Thus it is a truly
    “hypothetical” system, depending on a validating and verifying subject.

    The processes of validation and verification may be purely theoretical ones,
    but they never occur in a vacuum and they never terminate in a private,
    individual mind. The hypothetical system of forms and functions becomes
    dependent on another system—a pre-established universe of ends, in which and
    for which it develops. What appeared extraneous, foreign to the theoretical
    project, shows forth as part of its very structure (method and concepts); pure
    objectivity reveals itself as object for a subjectivity which provides the
    Telos, the ends. In the construction of the technological reality, there is no
    such thing as a purely rational scientific order; the process of technological
    rationality is a political process.

    Only in the medium of technology, man and nature become fungible objects of
    organization. The universal effectiveness and productivity of the apparatus
    under which they are subsumed veil the particular interests that organize the
    apparatus. In other words, technology has become the great vehicle of
    reification—reification in its most mature and effective form. The social
    position of the individual and his relation to others appear not only to be
    determined by objective qualities and laws, but these qualities and laws seem
    to lose their mysterious and uncontrollable character; they appear as
    calculable manifestations of (scientific) rationality. The world tends to
    become the stuff of total administration, which absorbs even the
    administrators. The web of domination has become the web of Reason itself, and
    this society is fatally entangled in it. And the transcending modes of thought
    seem to transcend Reason itself.

### Positive and Negative Thinking

    In terms of the established universe, such contradicting modes of thought are
    negative thinking. “The power of the negative” is the principle which governs
    the development of concepts, and contradiction becomes the distinguishing
    quality of Reason (Hegel). This quality of thought was not confined to a
    certain type of rationalism; it was also a decisive element in the empiricist
    tradition. Empiricism is not necessarily positive; its attitude to the
    established reality depends on the particular dimension of experience which
    functions as the source of knowledge and as the basic frame of reference. For
    example, it seems that sensualism and materialism are per se negative toward a
    society in which vital instinctual and material needs are unfulfilled. In
    contrast, the empiricism of linguistic analysis moves within a framework which
    does not allow such contradiction—the self-imposed restriction to the prevalent
    behavioral universe makes for an intrinsically positive attitude. In spite of
    the rigidly neutral approach of the philosopher, the pre-bound analysis
    succumbs to the power of positive thinking.

    Before trying to show this intrinsically ideological character of linguistic
    analysis, I must attempt to justify my apparently arbitrary and derogatory play
    with the terms “positive” and “positivism” by a brief comment on their origin.
    Since its first usage, probably in the school of Saint-Simon, the term
    “positivism” has encompassed (1) the validation of cognitive thought by
    experience of facts; (2) the orientation of cognitive thought to the physical
    sciences as a model of certainty and exactness; (3) the belief that progress in
    knowledge depends on this orientation. Consequently, positivism is a struggle
    against all metaphysics, transcendentalisms, and idealisms as obscurantist and
    regressive modes of thought. To the degree to which the given reality is
    scientifically comprehended and transformed, to the degree to which society
    becomes industrial and technological, positivism finds in the society the
    medium for the realization (and validation) of its concepts—harmony between
    theory and practice, truth and facts. Philosophic thought turns into
    affirmative thought; the philosophic critique criticizes within the societal
    framework and stigmatizes non-positive notions as mere speculation, dreams or
    fantasies.1

    [...]

    The contemporary effort to reduce the scope and the truth of philosophy is
    tremendous, and the philosophers themselves proclaim the modesty and inefficacy
    of philosophy. It leaves the established reality untouched; it abhors
    transgression.

    Austin’s contemptuous treatment of the alternatives to the common usage of
    words, and his defamation of what we “think up in our armchairs of an
    afternoon”; Wittgenstein’s assurance that philosophy “leaves everything as it
    is”—such statements2 exhibit, to my mind, academic sado-masochism,