The “Great Refusal” and Social Theory, 1961–1981 119
aesthetic experience, instinctual gratification and expression be
realized here and now.^139In other words, the students’ critique of purposive-rational action
had gone too far. The hippies “... convert protest into a way of life
that absolves those who lead it from having to ascertain the effective-
ness of protest.”14 0 Recall the similarity with Habermas’s critique of
the actionist: his rejection of action oriented toward concrete goals
crippled the cause of pragmatic reform.
The sensibilities Habermas described proved congenial for
the reception of Marcuse’s works Eros and Civilization (1955 ), One-
Dimensional Man (19 65 ) , a n d t h e e s s a y “ R e p r e s s i v e To l e r a n c e ” (19 65 ).
In 1968, Habermas observed that “Marcuse [has] rightly become the
philosopher of the youth revolt.”^141 Marcuse’s stature as the major
intellectual inspiration of the movement encouraged Habermas to
engage seriously with his arguments. The most important of these
engagements was “Technology and Science as an ‘Ideology,’ ” dedi-
cated to Marcuse – whom he considered a friend – on his seventieth
birthday, July 19, 1968.^142 As Habermas worked through Marcuse’s
work, he seemed torn between the Weberian refusal of the “reen-
chantment of the world” and Marcuse’s affirmation of it. Habermas
agreed with Marcuse on a major point: Scientific-technical prog-
ress served as a legitimating ideology for contemporary capitalism
precisely at the moment when technology had created the potential
for major changes in the social order. However, they disagreed as
to whether “technical reason” could be rejected as domination tout
court. Because Marcuse’s arguments were so closely linked in his
mind with the student movement – its strengths and weaknesses –
Habermas’s debate with Marcuse was the most productive theater in
which Habermas worked out his differences with the student move-
ment in Germany.
In Marcuse, Habermas found a framework that corroborated his
own view of the depoliticizing effects of science and technology.
“I believe that Marcuse’s basic thesis, according to which technology
(^139) Habermas, “Einleitung,” in PuH, 15; TRS, 33.
14 0 Ibid.
(^141) Habermas, “Zum Geleit,” 443.
(^142) It was published in three different places in 1968: first in Merkur ( July-
August 1968), then in Habermas, ed., Antworten auf Marcuse ( July 1968 ),
and finally in TWI (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1968 ).