The search for a historically conscious individual who is disposed to “radical action” is the main thrust of this paper. This is premised on the following claims: first, that the modern society is a pathological society whose rules, most often but not necessarily, imply control and domination; thus a “refusal” to abide by these rules is the most appropriate alternative available; and, second, that there is still hope for the Enlightenment’s project of emancipation, that is, such “refusal,” which means a (...) political fight for liberation, is still winnable no matter how formidable the forces of domination may be. But this paper can only do so much. I do not offer any universal and prefab solution to the pathological society. What I do instead is argue that the emergence of a historically conscious individual who is disposed to “radical action,” which eventually leads to a “collective radical action,” is still possible today. I also argue that “radical action” presupposes an awareness of the concrete socio-historical situations, thus the importance of “historicity.” This is done through a reconstructive reading of Marcuse’sCritical Theory. In fact, my argument is just an echo on what Marcuse did more than four decades ago. (shrink)

The conclusion arrived at in the article titled “Heidegger, Hegel, Marx: Marcuse and the Theory of Historicity,” which appeared in a previous issue of this journal, accounts for Herbert Marcuse’s view of the possibility of the individual to become disposed to radical action. Marcuse thus wants to suggest that there is still hope for the Enlightenment’s project of “emancipation,” and that there is still a revolutionary subject who can carry out this political struggle for liberation. The progression of consciousness which (...) results in a historically conscious individual exemplified by the “consciousslave” in Hegel’s discussion of master-slave relation provided Marcuse the basis of his claim that the individual can be an active and dynamic political subject. Yet the slave who realizes via the notion of labor that it is himself and not the master who is truly free is, after all, still a slave. This means that individuals still need to fight for their freedom. (shrink)

Herbert Marcuse’s oeuvre is driven by the recurring theme of“emancipation”—that is, the attempt to liberate man from socialexploitation and the projection of an alternative society, a socialistsociety which Marcuse describes as “free, happy, and non-repressive.”1 This suggests that Marcuse saw the existing society as pathological and therefore it needs to be diagnosed and remedied. His readings on Marx led him to his initial findings that the capitalist social order is the primordial cause of thesepathologies, and, hence, it is the transformation (...) of this social order that can bring emancipation to fruition. Inasmuch as this struggle for emancipation requires an active political agent, a critical theorist is, therefore, bound to seek for this agent. This is precisely what concerned Marcuse in his pre-World War II writings. His theory of historicity, which straddles Heidegger, Hegel, andMarx, is a search for that viable political agent who can be the hope of emancipation. Thus, Marcuse’s theory of historicity is premised, among other things, on the attempt to develop a theory of emancipation, and I call this “Marcuse’s first theory of emancipation.”. (shrink)