A review of Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance

The Frankfurt Theorist by the name of Herbert Marcuse has made an essay entitled Repressive Tolerance (1965). He basically argue that in order to achieve genuine tolerance we need to apply the intolerance of the tolerance of false tolerance. The false tolerance that Herbert mentioned is what he called as a "repressive tolerance." The tolerance in the advance of industrial society has been promoting oppression than liberation, and its repressive nature clothed in the name of pure toleration. In his essay, Marcus tried to argued on how majority often oppressed minority and how toleration is strengthens tyranny rather than promote liberty. Tolerance, as Herbert further argued has became "passive-state"from practice to non-practice. In other words, toleration can only be pure toleration of it is applicable universally if practiced by ruler and ruled and one need to the act of "withdrawal" from the repressive movements. 

What Marcuse positively pointed out is to dismantled any act of power that is inherent to the system of tolerance, that is repressive. "Tolerance is end in itself." Marcuse idea against the "elitism" and domination framework, and the process of indoctrination that often governed society. This is the paradox of tolerance that Marcuse bring that is to say, in order to bring tolerance one need to be intolerance toward those who are intolerance (Existing society). What we can be aware of that in Marcus's essay, there was a  tendency of bringing the notion of unlimited tolerance as the true meaning of tolerance that might come as the result of the equality and the pure liberty of different ideologies, ideas and policies he proposed.

Although Marcus idea was vital to make the reader aware of this idea of tolerance before replicating and passively apply the notion of repressive tolerance, he did not mentioned the limit or the notes on how we ought to be intolerant toward and form of repressive tolerance. Because of this, people might potentially fail into practicing his idea of tolerance but the idea of excessive tolerance instead to which one will destroy the notion of  tolerance because tolerance of everything will negate itself when it face of the notion of the intolerant of objective tolerance/liberating tolerance as Karl Popper argue, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance."

Having say that, if we read carefully in his essay, Marcuse clearly did not promote relativism for he aware that the distinctions between right and wrong can be maintained by reason and empirical evidences of people who has learned to think autonomous to preserve the other possibilities which seems even to be an Utopian ideal (for instance Marxism). Although it bring another difficulty on how people measure truth by the means of reason only (measured base on Practical? Benefit? Newness?)

Moreover, what Marcuse greatly remind us is to remove the idea of passivity, to accept voluntarily the idea that is repressive and opposed the other voices that is what we often called as minority and being an outcast and against the tyranny of any kind. He also against the false consciousness of accepting the value and facts into the predominant ideology. Thus, he promote the need of equality and learn to think in opposite direction in which tolerance should then best practiced (Practically, more intolerant toward right-wings and tolerant toward left-wings with the assumption that right dominating). Having say that, however, there is also another side of the coin of accepting Herbert idea people should note. 

By practicing the tolerances of repressive tolerance one also need to be open and also tolerant toward intolerance in some extend, as John Rawls argue in his theory of justice that the tolerant society that Herbert proposed need to be ready to be in danger as toleration is applied, it potentially disturb the institution of the liberty by itself, realistically speaking. The liberty that Marcuse presented is an ideal and an ongoing process whereby the autonomy and liberty of human is hopefully to be appreciated and increased more through the means of reason as He himself mentioned in his ground breaking book One-Dimensional Man (1964), 

"But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought."

Nevertheless today, there is a huge gap between the ideal of toleration and the practical realization of toleration and so we can say, today democracy of the East and West are still far away from this ideal. Equally to be thought of, bringing the tendency of human to suppress and oppress, can this ideal be ever achieved?