Herbert Marcuse Pure Tolerance

Among the multiple works examined in the second half of the course my least favorite was Herbert Marcuse’s essay, Repressive Tolerance. In the text he presents a critique of what he calls “pure tolerance,” a non-partisan approach that views all arguments with equal validity. (Marcuse) While “pure tolerance” allows for the views of all to be expressed Marcuse claims this form of tolerance limits freedom and justice. He instead opts for a biased form of “ liberating tolerance” that promotes his partisan views over the opinions of others. To further analyze the claims of Marcuse the definition of tolerance must be established. The dictionary defines tolerance as, “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs,

He claims that rational expression must be devoid of indoctrination from a prevailing party. In regards to pluralism he writes a “…multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course. (Marcuse)” He is quick to point the finger at media outlets and the Right for having too much control in public opinion. The method he proposes to fix the situation is by having a group of intellectuals dictate the views that should be promoted. These intellectuals would more than likely be of the same school of thought as Marcuse and would exclude others. Marcuse wishes to simply to transfer a majority of the persuasion power to the Left. This method contradicts his statement on the formation of rational thought. Indoctrination whether it comes from the Left or the Right is undesirable. If he were truly concerned with promoting free speech and thought he would advocate for a balancing of power between the two opposing sides. Instead he suggests replacing the existing biased institution with another one. Marcuse poses no real solution to problem and only serves to perpetuate a monopolistic control of

It was quite interesting to study the arguments of authors coming from a variety of schools of thought. Even the authors I disagreed with I still found interesting and beneficial to my understanding of politics. Herbert Marcuse’s essay, Repressive Tolerance, was my least work covered in the latter half of the semester. His method to reduce the harmful effects of “pure tolerance” does not produce a real solution, but rather a continuation of the problem tailored to his views. Marcuse’s biased stance goes against the objective nature of tolerance, his call to be intolerant of opinions emanating from the Right is undemocratic as it undermines the views of one group in favor of another, and his method to fix the problem simply replaces the current power structure with another. This line of thinking is not one that should be applied to fixing the problem. A free society should promote a public arena where all opinions can meet and be heard. The more informed the people can be of every perspective from the Left to the Right the more educated of a decision is made. Each side has something to learn each other and an open dialogue is more conducive to progress than a closed one. Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” ends up being just as regressive as “pure tolerance” due to its counterproductive