AccScience Publishing / AC / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/AC025190035
ARTICLE

Aesthetics and liberation: Herbert Marcuse on the sociopolitical value of the arts

Christine Doran1*
Show Less
1 Faculty of Arts and Society, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
Received: 6 May 2025 | Revised: 4 July 2025 | Accepted: 8 July 2025 | Published online: 28 July 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

The role of the arts in society and politics was of profound concern to Herbert Marcuse in his philosophical work. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Herbert Marcuse – a prominent member of the Frankfurt School – became increasingly insistent on the fundamental importance of the arts for the well-being of both the individual and society. Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the philosophy and social thought of Marcuse. This paper highlights that Marcuse’s conceptualization of the significance of the arts – especially their social and political roles – offers valuable insights for contemporary theorists, artists, and their supporters. This paper particularly focuses on the implications of Marcuse’s work for understanding the role of the arts in fostering social change. It outlines Marcuse’s ideas on political economy – his claim that technological development under capitalism has produced an abundance of output that could provide the basis for radical social and political change. In addition, this study examines the philosophical grounding of Marcuse’s ideas regarding the role of the arts through the aesthetics theories of Kant and Schiller. Some objections that might be raised against Marcuse’s theories concerning the arts are considered critically. Finally, the affective potency and value of Marcuse’s work are underlined.

Keywords
Herbert Marcuse
Frankfurt school
Arts
Aesthetics
Utopia
Surrealism
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
References
  1. Marcuse H. The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics. Boston: Beacon Press; 1978.

 

  1. Clark J. A new Marcusean moment? A review of eros and revolution: The critical philosophy of Herbert Marcuse. Capital Nat Social. 2017;28(4):111-117. doi: 10.1080/10455752.2017.1392691

 

  1. Power N. Marcuse and feminism revisited. Radic Philos Rev. 2013;16(1):73-79. doi: 10.5840/radphilrev20131619

 

  1. Feenberg A. The Philosophy of Praxis: Marx, Lukács and the Frankfurt School. London: Verso; 2014.

 

  1. Castro JS. Eros and Revolution: The Critical Philosophy of Herbert Marcuse. Leiden: Brill; 2016.

 

  1. Parton G. Marcuse’s revolutionary aesthetics, today. Situations. 2021;IX(1&2):83-106.

 

  1. Maley T. The relevance of Herbert Marcuse’s thought today: Or the historical fate of bourgeois democracy in and beyond the neoliberal era. Theory Cult Soc. 2021;38(7-8):107-129. doi: 10.1177/02632764211051419

 

  1. Buhle P, Lamas AT. Herbert Marcuse, Philosopher of Utopia. In: Illustrated by N. Thorkelson, editor. A Graphic Biography. San Francisco: City Lights Publishers; 2019.

 

  1. Jay M. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Res, 1923-1950. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1973.

 

  1. Buck-Morss S. The Origin of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt Institute. Brighton: Harvester Press; 1977.

 

  1. Jeffries S. Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. London: Verso; 2016.

 

  1. Jay M. Reason After its Eclipse: On Late Critical Theory. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; 2016.

 

  1. Marcuse H. An Essay on Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press; 1969.

 

  1. Marcuse H. Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston: Beacon Press; 1966.

 

  1. Marx K. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1. New York: International Publishers; 1970.

 

  1. Piketty T. In: Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Translated by A. Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2014.

 

  1. Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Marcus Weigelt. London: Penguin Classics; 2003. Kant I. In: Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Thomas K. Abbott. New York: Dover Publications; 2004.

 

  1. Schiller F. On the Aesthetic Education of Man in a Series of Letters. Translated by Wilkinson EM, Willoughby LA. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1967.

 

  1. Jameson F. Marxism and Form: Twentieth-Century Dialectical Theories of Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1971.

 

  1. Snow CP. The Two Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

 

  1. Benjamin W. Surrealism: The Last Snapshot of the European Intelligentsia. In: Demetz P, editor. Jephcott E. Translator. Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1978. p. 177-192.

 

  1. Adorno TW. The aging of the new music. Telos. 1988;77:95-116. doi: 10.3817/0988077095

 

  1. Adorno TW. Negative Dialectics. Translated by Ashton EB. New York: Continuum; 1990.

 

  1. Becker CL. The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers. Haven: Yale University Press; 2003.

 

  1. Lukács G. The Meaning of Contemporary Realism. Translated by Mander J, Mander N. London: Merlin Press; 1963.

 

  1. Jameson F. Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fiction. London: Verso; 2005.

 

  1. Davis M. Old Gods, New Enigmas: Marx’s Lost Theory. New York: Verso; 2018.

 

  1. Deleuze G. Deleuze Spinoza Lecture Given at the Vincennes; 1978. Available from: https://www.webdeleuze.com/ textes/14 [Last accessed on 2025 Apr 20].
Share
Back to top
Arts & Communication, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4090 Published by AccScience Publishing