One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society

In ways does the totalitarianism of modern industrial society differ from the terroristic totalitarianism of more obviously repressive systems? Do you agree with Marcuse that both forms count as “totalitarianism”? Why or why not?

The democratization of access to the arts—e.g., free admission to museums, free access to books in libraries—is almost unequivocally viewed as a positive for society. However, Marcuse argues that this accessibility has also deradicalized the arts. What are the advantages and disadvantages of democratized access? How does it inhibit, or promote, meaningful opposition to the status quo?

Marcuse is interested in how what is experienced by the people as freedom is actually a form of repression in advanced industrial society. How, then, is Marcuse able to see through the illusion of freedom that others are not able to penetrate? What, if anything, makes radicalism still possible?

How is the natural world depicted in One-Dimensional Man? How do Marcuse’s discussions of the natural world help illuminate his key themes and ideas?

If Marcuse believes that dialectical thinking is essential to liberation from advanced industrial thinking, is his own writing dialectical? How does Marcuse engage the reader’s mind? Is the process of One-Dimensional Man aligned with its argument for liberation?

Marcuse is deeply critical of academic, analytic philosophy and its desire to maintain the status quo. Is academic philosophy capable of becoming radical? If so, how, and if not, why not?

How is technology a force for oppression or liberation in One-Dimensional Man? What is its role in modern industrial society, and would it be possible for that role to change? Why or why not?

The discipline of science asserts its objectivity and neutrality, but Marcuse insists that it is not objective and that science is embedded in the conservative politics of the status quo. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Marcuse’s assessment? What would a more radical or “truthful” science look like?