Contemporary Theory- response questions, set 3
Critical Theory

Please choose one (1) question to respond to in a 2-3 page response. It will be due on Wednesday, April 1, 2009.

1.) The critical theorists Marcuse and Adorno & Horkheimer agree that in capitalist societies,  any impulses that the public would have to change their situation are channelled towards purchasing more commodities and all the institutions work toward keeping each person obedient and not questioning in order to preserve the status quo. Each theorist, however, sees resistance happening in different ways. Marcuse sees the only resistance possible as a "refusal to engage" and withdrawal from the system while Horkheimer & Adorno see "high" art as the best way in which individuals can see a different alternative to the present reality. Please compare and critique each of these solutions in terms of its power as a form of resistance and its likelihood of succeeding. Which do you see as the most plausible? Why?.

2.) Horkheimer & Adorno argue that the natural power of art to make citizens aware is overpowered by market forces which transforms its ability to educate the public into all-out manipulation into "buying" products. They apply this concept to the political marketplace in which they argue that candidates increasingly campaign through televised political ads which are designed to manipulate public opinion more than to educate voters about political possibilities and agendas. These ad campaigns then prevent  voters from understanding the real issues that are at stake in an election and manipulate support based on more superficial factors. What do you make of their argument? Is it valid or not? What would a campaign look like that would offer a truer view of the political options offered in an election?

3.) Marcuse sees the  pressure to conform imposed on individuals as one of the ways in which each person is programmed to become a cog in the industrial machine. He defines this pressure to conform as  imposed by social institutions  which creates the "one dimensional" man, out of touch with his natural drives and impulses for happiness and true fulfillment. Marcuse then sees any effort to express the natural drives of violence and sexuality by an individual as the beginning of an effort to break through the social repression. While he is not advocating unrestrained violence or sex, he does see the efforts of people to explore alternative lifestyles, including the free love movement, drug use, and the hippie movement as legitimate and healthy efforts of people in the 1960's to try to lead a more authentic life. In retrospect, looking back at the 1960's, do those efforts reflect liberation or do they reflect a different type of adaptation to the industrial machine? In other words, were they revolutionary and liberating movements or not? Or were they something else? What do you think?

4. Habermas argues that by reinvigorating civil society and bringing communicative ethics to public discourse and discussion that we can use reason and discourse to counter bureaucratic, impersonal authority and humanize it in a way that can transform institutions so that they can help individuals find more freedom of choice rather can continue to imprison them w/ rules and regulations. Some critics argue that Habermas is too idealistic in thinking that individuals in authority would give up the power of their position and put themselves on the same level as a less powerful citizen and maybe lose the argument. Others argue that assuming that very different people can reach a consensus at all is too optimistic. Others, in support of Habermas, argue that, while it would not be easy and would require a significant commitment to the process of all, it is the best answer to create an inclusive public policy and reinvigorate our lives as citizens. Where do you place yourself in this argument? Why?