Repressive Tolerance is a famous essay by Herbert Marcuse in the 1960’s. Marcuse was a famous philosopher who heavily influenced the thought of the political left. We will look at the ideas presented in Marcuse’s essay Repressive Tolerance. However, it is important to mention that Marcuse’s writing style is highly dense and convoluted. Therefore, it would not be practical to call this a summary as his ideas are so difficult to explain.
The central thesis of Repressive Tolerance can be found in the direct quote from the essay shown below.
Liberating tolerance then would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left
Herbert Marcuse “Repressive Tolerance”
The quote above, which appears towards the end of the essay, summarizes what Marcuse is trying to explain. The left should be tolerated while the right should be repressed. The rest of the essay shares examples of this critical point in a highly difficult way to understand and appreciate.
It is also important to consider the context of this essay. It was written in the 1960s during political upheaval in the United States. Minorities were pushing for equal rights while at the same time, there was a controversial war happening. In addition, Marcuse was already an older man at this point in his life so he had seen the horrors of World War II and the right-wing fascist government of Hitler. In other words, this background played a major role in shaping his views on tolerance.
Tolerance Gone Wrong
One example that Marcuse uses to illustrate the danger of tolerating the right is Adolf Hitler. Through tolerance from other countries and even within Germany, Hitler was able to rise to power and cause untold chaos. However, Marcuse conveniently forgot to mention the untold terror of left dictators such as Stalin, Lenin, and Mao. Therefore, it seems that the problem isn’t so much the left or right of the political debate but rather the problem is people who use either the left or the right to rise to power. The danger isn’t the political position but the character of the person(s) who is in charge
Marcuse’s ultimate goal is to develop a world without fear and misery. In other words, he is seeking a utopia, a common left-wing dream. This can potentially be achieved through careful use of tolerance in which everything is not tolerated. Failure to do this could allow for tyranny to arise as the tyrants will use tolerance to take power.
Types of Tolerance and Political Violence
Marcuse also mentions two types of tolerance: active and passive. Active tolerance is tolerance that is granted to the left and the right. Passive tolerance is acceptance of traditional attitudes and behaviors. From these two definitions, it appears that Marcuse is criticizing both of them. Active tolerance is bad because it tolerates the right while passive tolerance is also bad because it supports only traditional values, which are often associated with the right as well.
Another general point of Marcuse is that tolerance cannot be indiscriminate otherwise it will be abuse. Wisdom is needed in determining what is tolerated and it appears that the left should be tolerated because they are pushing for change while the right should be repressed because they support the status quo.
Who Should be Tolerated
Marcuse also provides examples of when tolerance has been limited depending on the context. For example, he provides an example from John Stuart Mills who stated that tolerance for the selection of leadership should be limited to those with “maturity of faculties.” Another example is from Plato who suggested an educational dictatorship or a tolerance of leaders who have achieved a certain minimum level of education. In both these examples tolerance is dependent on social standing. In other words, the educated should be tolerated in positions of power while the uneducated should not.
Marcuse also provides examples of intolerance as well. He pulls several examples of heretics during the days when the Catholic Church had a major influence over Europe. Marcuse then goes on the mention the need people have for access to authentic information so that they can make properly informed decisions. In other words, it is not social standing that matters but rather the quality of information that is available to the people that matters even more. Therefore, those with quality information should be tolerated to make decisions while those without quality information should not be tolerated to make decisions. Unfortunately, determining what is quality information is another dilemma that can never be solved.
The Sharing of Information
Toward the end of the essay, Marcuse shares examples of how the way information is shared can influence tolerance. Examples included sharing positive and negative articles about the government in the same newspaper. This would send a potentially balanced message about the government. Another example was of a newscaster sharing a tragedy without emotion. Again, the way the message is shared can play a part in the tolerance that is perceived.
For Marcuse, truth is mediated by the environment or context in which it is shared. This implies that it is difficult if not impossible to be partial and unbiased. Marcuse does not say this directly but it appears he is alluding to it.
Conclusion
Marcuse is a tough read. He addresses several ideas at once and spirals back to them throughout the piece. This post was not a summary of his essay but essentially was just an attempt to try and organize the thoughts that Marcuse shared. The primary point of the article is that toleration belongs to the left while the right should be repressed or perhaps not tolerated.