Every ways, may even work against our basic

Every
society has different ways of functioning to provide the basis of reaching
these needs. In affluent societies citizens are provided with the means to
attain false needs as well as basic needs, thus giving them the perceived
choice between the two. Marcuse points out that false needs have very little to
do with our basic needs and in some ways, may even work against our basic needs
because it gives the individual a choice between necessary and unnecessary. He explains
that the creation of false needs causes individuals to work more to be able to
afford them and in doing so, they repress their basic needs. This is damaging
in many ways, most notably in that people will perform excess labour and
subject themselves to stress or physical pain as well as using excess resources
unnecessarily. As status becomes reflected in what a person can buy, individuals
begin to define themselves with what they purchase, so the self image of those
with the society is reflected in what they can buy. This provides a different
motivation to work. Marcuse himself says, “the social controls exact the
overwhelming need for the production and consumption of waste; the need for
stupefying work where it is no longer a real necessity; the need for modes of
relaxation which soothe and prolong this stupefication” (Marcuse, H. 1968,
p.9).

In
modern affluent societies, individuals no longer need new inventions to satisfy
basic needs, there is already means to do so. However, people grow accustomed
to false needs that they may find comfort in. If people work enough, they can
attain whatever false needs they desire, but at what cost? Marcuse says that
this system is unfair and perpetuates poverty as well as giving corporations
and technology excessive power. He believes every individual has opposition
within them, but because of the vary nature of the system itself, people are
not likely to oppose it. I quote, “Under the condition of a rising standard of
living, non-conformity with the system itself appears to be socially useless,
and the more so when it entails tangible economic and political disadvantages
and threatens the smooth operation of the whole.” (Marcuse, H. 1968, p.4).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

What
are the causes for the emergence of one-dimensional thought? Perhaps an
excessive faith technology. The capitalist mode of production hinges primarily
on technology and thus resulted in a new form of rationality. Technology
itself promotes greater automation of production and in turn, people learn to
value efficiency. Technological rationality develops as the material foundation
of human freedom, but simultaneously serves the interests of suppression. These
technologies could help people in many ways but instead are used for
maintaining order within the society. The individuals are told about the need
to work efficiently and productively but this notion aids in maintaining and even
extending as a form of totalitarianism. Marcuse claims that technology is
“value-neutral” because it has no fixed value. Technology is neither good nor
bad but has the potential to be good or bad. So, the value ascribed to
technology is completely dependent upon the motive of the user. For example, if
a someone uses technology to be dominate others then they are using it in a
negative way, but if it happens to be liberating, then it has been employed it
in the right way. By the vary nature of a totalitarian society, the notion of a
value-neutrality when using technology can no longer continue.

Through
the early 1960’s, many people in developing countries held a deep faith in the
power of large scale technologies to increase productivity, generate wealth and
overcome persistent material scarcity, to remake societies for the better
(Macekura, S. 2015). This technological progress did not necessarily benefit all
of society, perhaps the elite benefited most. It did create more work
efficiency. Nonetheless there were many people living simpler and happier lives
in pre-technological times but the ability to question the impacts of the new
technological processes is hindered by the new assumptions of validity that are
being simultaneously imposed on the people. That perceived state of economic
development and societal progress which is enforced through advertisements for
example, allowing the use of such technologies to become less questionable
among the general public.

As
mentioned above, Marcuse believed that individuals work too much and he does
provide a solution, through the abolition of alienated labour. Until the
development of false needs, those within a society were only working to meet
basic needs and thus had more time and freedom for other things. By working so
much and living in such luxury, people have reached a stage where they could
reduce working time but choose not to as this jeopardizes their acquisition of
material goods. Marcuse advocates for free time to become full time and working
time to be marginalized, this would obviously involve a complete adjustment of
values and it may not be the most practical solution, but reliance on
consumption would hopefully be reduced. By abolishing alienated labour, the
worker would not be as isolated, whereas by working, the individual is cut off
from society. A potential downfall of this is that it only applies to those
that place value on working with other people and does not consider those who
work alone. For Marcuse, the pressure to conform to the social environment
means that individual thought is sacrificed as being in a state of autonomy
“are potentially revolutionary precursors to a commitment to social change”
(Brookfield, 2003, p. 195), For an individual to truly have independent thought
they must separate themselves from anything that could influence them.

Freedom
to choose what to buy does not produce a state of “freedom” to Marcuse but
rather, a state of “unfreedom,” as consumers work more to fulfill basic needs.
Within this destructive system they ignore the destructive effects of wasteful
consumption, environmental damage and the damage to human health, as they
strive to find a social connection through the acquisition of material goods. The
notion that the consumer be allowed to define their own needs has resulted in
problems that are rooted in advertising and lack of will to change. But it is
important to note that there are positive things Marcuse illuminates. He says
that societies have been granted more sexual freedom in this way, and seem to
have allowed more references to sexuality in public view such as in
advertising.

Every
society has different ways of functioning to provide the basis of reaching
these needs. In affluent societies citizens are provided with the means to
attain false needs as well as basic needs, thus giving them the perceived
choice between the two. Marcuse points out that false needs have very little to
do with our basic needs and in some ways, may even work against our basic needs
because it gives the individual a choice between necessary and unnecessary. He explains
that the creation of false needs causes individuals to work more to be able to
afford them and in doing so, they repress their basic needs. This is damaging
in many ways, most notably in that people will perform excess labour and
subject themselves to stress or physical pain as well as using excess resources
unnecessarily. As status becomes reflected in what a person can buy, individuals
begin to define themselves with what they purchase, so the self image of those
with the society is reflected in what they can buy. This provides a different
motivation to work. Marcuse himself says, “the social controls exact the
overwhelming need for the production and consumption of waste; the need for
stupefying work where it is no longer a real necessity; the need for modes of
relaxation which soothe and prolong this stupefication” (Marcuse, H. 1968,
p.9).

In
modern affluent societies, individuals no longer need new inventions to satisfy
basic needs, there is already means to do so. However, people grow accustomed
to false needs that they may find comfort in. If people work enough, they can
attain whatever false needs they desire, but at what cost? Marcuse says that
this system is unfair and perpetuates poverty as well as giving corporations
and technology excessive power. He believes every individual has opposition
within them, but because of the vary nature of the system itself, people are
not likely to oppose it. I quote, “Under the condition of a rising standard of
living, non-conformity with the system itself appears to be socially useless,
and the more so when it entails tangible economic and political disadvantages
and threatens the smooth operation of the whole.” (Marcuse, H. 1968, p.4).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

What
are the causes for the emergence of one-dimensional thought? Perhaps an
excessive faith technology. The capitalist mode of production hinges primarily
on technology and thus resulted in a new form of rationality. Technology
itself promotes greater automation of production and in turn, people learn to
value efficiency. Technological rationality develops as the material foundation
of human freedom, but simultaneously serves the interests of suppression. These
technologies could help people in many ways but instead are used for
maintaining order within the society. The individuals are told about the need
to work efficiently and productively but this notion aids in maintaining and even
extending as a form of totalitarianism. Marcuse claims that technology is
“value-neutral” because it has no fixed value. Technology is neither good nor
bad but has the potential to be good or bad. So, the value ascribed to
technology is completely dependent upon the motive of the user. For example, if
a someone uses technology to be dominate others then they are using it in a
negative way, but if it happens to be liberating, then it has been employed it
in the right way. By the vary nature of a totalitarian society, the notion of a
value-neutrality when using technology can no longer continue.

Through
the early 1960’s, many people in developing countries held a deep faith in the
power of large scale technologies to increase productivity, generate wealth and
overcome persistent material scarcity, to remake societies for the better
(Macekura, S. 2015). This technological progress did not necessarily benefit all
of society, perhaps the elite benefited most. It did create more work
efficiency. Nonetheless there were many people living simpler and happier lives
in pre-technological times but the ability to question the impacts of the new
technological processes is hindered by the new assumptions of validity that are
being simultaneously imposed on the people. That perceived state of economic
development and societal progress which is enforced through advertisements for
example, allowing the use of such technologies to become less questionable
among the general public.

As
mentioned above, Marcuse believed that individuals work too much and he does
provide a solution, through the abolition of alienated labour. Until the
development of false needs, those within a society were only working to meet
basic needs and thus had more time and freedom for other things. By working so
much and living in such luxury, people have reached a stage where they could
reduce working time but choose not to as this jeopardizes their acquisition of
material goods. Marcuse advocates for free time to become full time and working
time to be marginalized, this would obviously involve a complete adjustment of
values and it may not be the most practical solution, but reliance on
consumption would hopefully be reduced. By abolishing alienated labour, the
worker would not be as isolated, whereas by working, the individual is cut off
from society. A potential downfall of this is that it only applies to those
that place value on working with other people and does not consider those who
work alone. For Marcuse, the pressure to conform to the social environment
means that individual thought is sacrificed as being in a state of autonomy
“are potentially revolutionary precursors to a commitment to social change”
(Brookfield, 2003, p. 195), For an individual to truly have independent thought
they must separate themselves from anything that could influence them.

Freedom
to choose what to buy does not produce a state of “freedom” to Marcuse but
rather, a state of “unfreedom,” as consumers work more to fulfill basic needs.
Within this destructive system they ignore the destructive effects of wasteful
consumption, environmental damage and the damage to human health, as they
strive to find a social connection through the acquisition of material goods. The
notion that the consumer be allowed to define their own needs has resulted in
problems that are rooted in advertising and lack of will to change. But it is
important to note that there are positive things Marcuse illuminates. He says
that societies have been granted more sexual freedom in this way, and seem to
have allowed more references to sexuality in public view such as in
advertising.

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out