Surplus Repression and Reform in Marcuses Eros and Civilization

Abstract:
In this paper I argue that Marcuses concept of surplus repression is a viable means of critique
current society. Marcuse basis his account on the philosophical implications of Freuds
psychoanalytic theory. By using the concepts of the reality principle, the performance principle,
and surplus repression, I show that while Marcuses account of revolution is problematic, he does
allow for reform within a society by reducing surplus repression. A reduction of surplus
repression changes the way that our primary instincts are repressed and changes the way that we
work and play. I provide a brief example of how we can see reform operating in our current
society and how this can potentially reduce what Marcuse calls alienated labor.

In his seminal book Eros and Civilization, Herbert Marcuse sets out to provide a
philosophically informed psychoanalytical critique of contemporary civilization and show that a
non-repressive civilization is possible. Central to Marcuses account is the concept of surplus

PHL 820
repression and the role that surplus repression plays in inhibiting the reality of a non-repressive
civilization. In short, surplus repression is the restrictions placed on the instincts that stem from
social domination (Marcuse, 35). This is contrasted with basic repression, which is the
repression necessary for humans to thrive in civilization (35). Marcuse argues that while some
form of repression is necessary for civilization, surplus repression only serves to perpetuate
domination and imposes unnecessary limits on people. A non-repressive civilization is one that
is devoid of surplus repression. The question now arises how those oppressed in a civilization
come to recognize the surplus repression and remove it. This is part of Marcuses revolutionary
project, which has come up against recent criticism.
The aim of this paper is to show that Marcuses account of surplus repression is a viable
concept for criticizing contemporary Western society and that this social criticism can incite
revolution. I use the term revolution lightly, as I think that a society-wide revolution and the
elimination of surplus repression is not something that will happen all at once. Rather, I think
that Marcuse allows for the reduction of surplus repression to happen over time in small bursts
that is more akin to reform than revolution.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In section one I lay the foundation for
understanding the concept of surplus repression in Marcuses account by explaining the way that
Marcuse adopts the philosophical implications of Freuds psychoanalytic theory of man.
Section two contains the nature of surplus repression as it is found in Eros and Civilization. In
section three I discuss the revolutionary aspect of Marcuses account and consider a criticism
against Marcuses use of surplus repression and revolution.
1. Freud and Marcuse

Page

PHL 820
Marcuse states at the beginning of Eros and Civilization that his account of the relationship
between the individual and society is set against a psychoanalytic theory of man derived from
Freud (Marcuse, 7). Marcuse is not concerned with the scientific nature of psychoanalysis nor is
he concerned with the therapeutic aspect of psychoanalysis (7). Instead, he claims to be
contributing to the philosophy of psychoanalysis (7). As such, many of the concepts that
Marcuse uses to explain the nature of surplus repression and civilization come from Freud.
Using psychoanalytic concepts in the way that Marcuse does is in accord with other critical
theorists of his time, especially those at the Frankfurt School. Even though Marcuse uses
psychoanalytic concepts to explain the individual and civilization, he does so by reframing them
in a Marxist light. This is evident in the way that he incorporates labor, work, and economics
into his account.
In this section I will detail the central tenants of Freuds account of the human mental
structure as Marcuse explains it in Eros and Civilization. The concepts that I will explore are the
pleasure principle and the reality principle, the life instinct and the death instinct, and the id, ego,
and superego. How all of these concepts fit together to form the psychological makeup of our
mental processes is the foundation that Marcuse uses to build his account of surplus repression in
civilization. First I will explain the relation between the pleasure principle and the reality
principle.
The pleasure principle and the reality principle name the guiding forces of the instincts.
When our instincts, or desires, function in accordance with the pleasure principle, they strive for
nothing but gaining pleasure and they draw back from any operation which might arouse
unpleasantness (pain) (Marcuse, 13). The pleasure principle rules early on in ones mental
development. Central aspects of the pleasure principle are the desire for instant gratification,

Page

PHL 820
pleasure, joy, and destruction as a release from tension (12). One can see how the pleasure
principle operates in the mental processes of babies whom seek gratification and a release from
pain. Instant gratification of pleasure is not something that is always fulfilled as individuals
come into contact with both nature and other humans. This is when the reality principle slowly
starts to supersede the pleasure principle. In Marcuses words, [M]an learns to give up
momentary, uncertain, and destructive pleasure for delayed, restrained, but assured pleasure
(13).
The shift from the pleasure principle to the reality principle plays out within the id, ego, and
superego development of the human mental structure. The id, ego and superego denote the
different layers of the psyche (Marcuse, 29). The id is the most fundamental layer and is
associated with the unconscious processes and the primary instincts (29). In its infantile stage,
i.e. early in the formation of the mental structure, the id drives our desires in accordance with the
pleasure principle. The id seeks to simply satisfy the instinctual needs inherent in it. As an
individual comes in contact with the external world and the id is denied this satisfaction, a part of
the id begins developing into the ego (30). This is when the reality principle starts to take over.
Marcuse says that the ego is associated with the conscious mental processes where the id is
associated with the unconscious mental processes (30). The conscious mental processes function
to mediate between the id and the external world. One way of looking at this is to see that the
ego reins in the potentially destructive desires of the id in order to preserve the life of the
individual. As the mediator between the id and the external world, the ego shapes the
pleasurable desires of the id to accord with the reality of the external world. Marcuse eloquently
puts it like this:

Page

PHL 820
The chief function of the ego is that of co-ordinating, altering,
organizing, and controlling the instinctual impulses of the id so as
to minimize conflicts with the reality: to repress impulses that are
incompatible with the reality, to reconcile others with the reality
by changing their object, delaying or diverting their gratification,
transformation their mode of gratification, amalgamating them
with other impulses and so on. (Marcuse, 30).
In this way, the ego does not eliminate or otherwise destroy the id. Unconscious drives
and desires stemming from the id are still present, they are just not ruled by the pleasure
principle anymore. The reality principal, through the ego, supersedes the pleasure principle. It
modifies or reshapes pleasure so that the unconscious drives of the id accord with the aims and
values of the reality principal (12). This modification is a change that affects the very substance
of pleasure (13). There is a transubstantiation of pleasure so that it accords with the reality
principal (12). The unconscious desire for pleasure no longer takes the form of instant
gratification and now takes the form of secured and delayed gratification.
This is the most basic type repression that occurs in the development of our mental
processes. The ego, in accordance with the reality principle, represses the drives and desires of
the id by changing and reshaping them. Now, it is important to recognize that this repression is
necessary for sustaining the life of the individual. Without the repression of pleasure, the
instincts that drive the desires of the id are ultimately destructive in nature. As I will explain
below, Marcuse accepts that some form of repression is necessary. However, certain forms of the
reality principle create too much repression. First, though, I need to explain the superego and the
nature of the primary instincts.

Page

PHL 820
The superego is another layer of the mental structure that arises with the ego. The ego
receives its values and aims by introjecting the morality that superego forms. This morality, i.e.
what is right and wrong, come first from parental influence and then from societal and cultural
influences (Marcuse, 32). Marcuse says that the superego becomes the conscience of the ego,
imparting the sense of guilt in the individual with regard to the morality of the superego (32).
Quoting Freud, Marcuse states that as a rule the ego carries out repression in the service and at
the behest of the superego (32). At first, this sense of guilt and the repression that follows is
conscious since it comes from the conscious processes of the ego. However, the repression and
guilt from the superego quickly become unconscious (32).
The last piece of the Freudian puzzle is the primary instincts that drive the desires of the
id. The life instinct and the death instinct play a major role in Marcuses account of the
individual and civilization, specially the revolutionary and utopian aspects. He ultimately takes
these concepts and develops them beyond Freuds understanding of their nature. For now, I will
briefly explain them in the way that Marcuse interprets Freud. The life instinct and the death
instinct are called the primary instincts because they are the fundamental instincts at work within
the id. These two instincts have a common root and are thus related, even though they form an
antagonist struggle of our desires. The life instinct is most generally the desire to sustain and
preserve life (Marcuse, 25; 27). The erotic instincts are often identified as the life instincts. The
death instinct is the desire to eliminate tension through destructiveness. This destructiveness is
not for its own sake, however (29). In accordance with the pleasure principle, the death instinct
is the flight from unpleasantness and pain. Likewise, the life instinct is the desire for pleasure.
As an individual develops, these instincts get shape by the ego and the reality principle.

Page

PHL 820
In this section I detailed the psychoanalytic explanation of our mental structure that Marcuse
uses to explain surplus repression in our society. In the next section I go into greater detail on
how Marcuse develops some of these concepts in an attempt to provide a criticism of our current
culture and the unnecessary repression that the current culture forces on us and the detrimental
affect that this has on our life instinct.
2. Surplus Repression in Eros and Civilization
I begin this section by noting the historical nature of the reality principle. I then move on to
detail the nature of surplus repression and how surplus repression originates out of the current
reality principle, which Marcuse calls the performance principle. I conclude this section with an
explanation of how the performance principle relates to our Western capitalist society.
The fact that the reality principle is historically contingent is important for Marcuse. If the
reality principle were not historically contingent, then Marcuse would not be able to envisage
what he calls a non-repressive civilization. The general argument is that the ego faces a sociohistorical reality and is shaped by this socio-historical reality through the reality principle
(Marcuse, 34). The socio-historical reality is such that the vicissitudes of the socio-historical
reality reflect the biological vicissitudes of the instincts. Just as the instincts undergo a
transformation from the pleasure principle to the reality principle, reality, or civilization, once
underwent a similar transformation. The latter transformation takes the form of non-domination
to domination. As such, developed civilization is organized domination just as the developed
instincts are organized repression (34). Marcuse states that there now needs to be a distinction in
terminology between the biological vicissitudes and the socio-historical vicissitudes (35). This is
where he introduces surplus repression.

Page

PHL 820
Surplus repression names the restrictions necessitated by social domination (Marcuse, 35).
This is contrasted with basic repression: the modifications of the instincts necessary for the
perpetuation of the human race in civilization (35). Marcuse also introduces a new sociohistorical term for the reality principle, calling the prevailing historical form of the reality
principle the performance principle (35). To explain both of these concepts it will be easiest to
introduce one more Freudian concept: scarcity.
Scarcity simply names the limited resources of the external world to satisfy all of the
instinctual desires of an individual. When scarcity is prevalent in the world, the reality principle
necessarily represses the instincts and reshapes their aims from instant gratification, joy, play,
etc. to delayed gratification, most notably requiring work and toil to gain that which is necessary
for life to continue. A problem arises, however, when scarcity is reduced to a point that it is no
longer a necessary feature of the external world. The problem now is not scarcity itself, but the
organization of scarcity (Marcuse, 36).
Marcuse moves beyond Freud in claiming that a civilization based on domination will
impose repression based on an unequal organization of scarcity and the means to overcome
scarcity (Marcuse, 36). Ultimately scarcity will be distributed in the interest of those in power to
sustain their privileged position (36). This distribution of scarcity is not something that is
consciously made by those in power, but rather something that is imposed based on the current
socio-historical reality principle.
Now, different socio-historical forms of domination will result in different forms of the
reality principle. Which means that the repression that the reality principle imposes will be also
be different. The example that Marcuse gives is that a civilization organized around equally
distributed labor will necessarily have a different forms of repression than one organized around

Page

PHL 820
a limited number of people laboring for everyone in the society (Marcuse, 37). It follows from
this that these differences in the form of repression affect the very content of the reality
principle, for every form of the reality principle must be embodied in a system of societal
institutions and relations, laws and values which transmit and enforce the required
modifications of the instincts (37). While any form of the reality principle necessarily
represses the instincts, certain forms of the reality principle impose an undo amount of repression
that results from domination and the organization of scarcity imposed by the societal institutions.
This undo repression is surplus repression.
Marcuse calls the current socio-historical form of the reality principle the performance
principle. The performance principle organizes scarcity and the means to eliminate scarcity
around a certain mode of production and performance. Marcuse states that we designate it as
the performance principle in order to emphasize that under its rule society is stratified according
to the competitive economic performance of its members (Marcuse, 44). This is where the
Marcuse sways Freuds concepts in a Marxist direction. The performance principle organizes
work and labor in such a way that labor becomes alienated labor (45). Alienated labor is the type
of labor that a person performs not for the satisfaction of ones own needs, but for the satisfaction
of anothers needs. In order to satisfy the aims of the performance principle, surplus repression
is imposed on people in the society because the dominant organization of scarcity requires that
certain people in that society work in alienated labor. Marcuse ultimately claims that if the
reality principle is historically contingent and subject to change, then we can change the current
reality principle to something other than the performance principle and potentially remove the
surplus repression that results from the reality principle. By removing surplus repression there
would be a revolution in the way that we work and play (Moore, 202).

Page

PHL 820
Before moving on I want to tie the notion of the performance principle and surplus
repression back to Freuds account of the primary instincts and the id, ego, and superego. Recall
that the primary instincts reside in the id and that the drives of the id are initially in accordance
with the pleasure principle. As the individual comes in contact with the external world the ego
represses the primary instincts and reshapes pleasure to accord with the reality principle. In our
current Western society this repression takes the form of the performance principle and there is
surplus repression of the primary instincts that is not necessary. The outlook here is that work
and play would be organized in a less repressive manner if we could remove or reduce surplus
repression and reform our civilization into a non-repressive civilization.
In the last part of this section I will comment on the surplus repression of our current
Western society. Marcuse briefly mentions this form of repression but does not spell it out in
detail. I will focus on labor and the Western consumerist perpetuation of the performance
principle.
Dunston Moore provides an explanation of the problem with the Western consumerist
culture as it applies to the performance principle. Consumerism is the idea that increased
consumptions of goods produce is healthy both for the consumer and for the economy. It is a
concept that is used to justify and validate the performance of individuals to produce more
products. The problem with the consumerist ethos is that it also validates and supports alienated
labor. With the aim to maximize profits and sell more products, people have to work to get what
they need or think they need. Goods such as televisions, fancy cars, and expensive cloths are
continually pushed on the public through entertainment. There is a perceived level of scarcity
that results from this (Moore, 206). Repression in the Western consumerist society comes from
the perceived need to work, spend, and play in a way that aligns with the aims of the

Page

10

PHL 820
performance principle. Marcuse puts it nicely by saying that the definition of the standard of
living in terms of automobiles, televeision sets, airplanes, and tractors is that of the performance
principle. Beyond the rule of the performance principle, the level of living would be measured
by other criteria: the universal gratification of the basic human needs, and the freedom from guilt
and fear (Marcuse, 153).
3. Revolution, Reform, and The Reduction of Surplus Repression
In Eros and Civilization Marcuse presents a utopian sketch of what society could look
like if surplus repression were eliminated. This society would be a post economic society where
work is no longer composed of alienated labor, but is instead composed of labor that is
meaningful to the individual and inline with the individuals unrepressed instincts (Marcuse,
153). Marcuses utopian vision is certainly up for critique and one can critique that it is
impossible to eliminate all surplus repression. However, I will focus on reducing surplus
repression and reducing alienated labor.
I want to open this section with a critique of Marcuses theory of surplus repression and
revolution. Peter M. R. Stirk criticizes that Marcuse fails to provide the means to measure
surplus repression and discriminate between basic repression and surplus repression (Stirk, 75).
This failure creates the impossibility of completely abolishing surplus repression, because if
surplus repression cannot be distinguished from basic repression in some measureable form, then
the people in the society have nothing recognizable to rebel against. Basic repression, according
to Marcuse, is necessary, does not constitute undo repression, and in fact must be prevalent for
individuals living together in a society. So if it is impossible to distinguish between basic
repression and surplus repression, then how does an individual know if they are rebelling against
the wrong type of repression?

Page

11

PHL 820
Moore corroborates this concern claiming that Marcuse assumes that there is a clear
distinction between basic repression and surplus repression, but does not convincingly provide a
means to distinguished the two (Moore, 207). Moore notes that perhaps Marcuse was not
concerned with drawing hard lines between what results from basic repression and what results
from surplus repression (Moore, 208). Perhaps Marcuses intention was to simply point out that
there is both necessary repression and unnecessary repression to highlight that we can remove
the unnecessary repression.
Now, revolution and reform fit in here because revolution is supposed to result from
individuals recognizing the surplus repression and revolting against it. Part of this revolution
involves reorganizing scarcity so that scarcity is shared among all individuals. Another part of
this revolution is the freeing up of the primary instincts so that pleasure is not unnecessarily
repressed in accordance with the performance principle. The result of this revolution is
Marcuses utopian vision of a non-repressive civilization.
Stirk comments that the surplus repression and the revolutionary aspect of Marcuses
works is now relegated to cursory attention (Stirk, 77). The reason for this is that Marcuse could
not come up with a sufficient answer as to why individuals did not rebel against surplus
repression in a of the society that can potentially remove scarcity and the surplus repression
along with it (Stirk, 77). Part of the answer from Marcuse is that the mechanism of the
performance principle blocks people from this insight (Sitrk, 77). Thus revolution never
happens.
At this point I want to contend that revolution does happen in small chunks and that while
surplus repression is prevalent, it is reduced in these small, contained revolutions. Marcuse
himself remarks that the reduction of surplus repression is a gradual process (Marcuse, 131).

Page

12

PHL 820
The recognition of surplus repression and the repressive organization of scarcity is something
that people need to be educated on in order to reduce surplus repression. Marcuse comments that
the distinction between rational and irrational authority, between repression and surplus
repression, can be made and verified by the individuals themselves. That they cannot make this
distinction now does not mean that they cannot learn to make it once they are given the
opportunity to do so (225).
To begin, I agree with both Stirk and Moore that we cannot measure surplus repression
absolutely and therefore cannot envisage what exactly we need to rebel against in a holistic
sense. However, we can recognize surplus repression in some areas and reduce that repression.
Two examples are the LGBT movement and the recent debate regarding the prohibition on
marijuana. Both of these areas fit within the example that Marcuse gives of surplus repression:
The modification and deflections of instinctual energies [i.e. the
reshaping of the primary instincts] necessitated by the perpetuation
of the monogamic-patriachal family, or by a hierarchial division of
labor, or by public control over the individuals private existence
are instances of surplus repression pertaining to the institutions of a
particular reality principle. (Marcuse, 37-8)
The current prevailing reality principle confers societal repression regarding LGBT because
it does not accord with the monogamic-patriacal family and repression over ones private life
with regard to the prohibition on marijuana because it does not accord with the values in the
current reality principle. However, both of these issues have seen recent reform from people
rebelling against the repression.

Page

13

PHL 820
Just as surplus repression can be removed with regard to the way that we play and enjoy
our private lives, surplus repression can be reduced in the way that we work and thus alienated
labor can be reduced. This requires similar levels of education and awareness of the surplus
labor.
4. Conclusion
In this paper I argued that Marcuses concept of surplus repression is useful for social
criticism and reform despite criticisms against the concept. I began with an exposition of the
Freudian concepts that Marcuse uses, focusing on the reality principle and the pleasure principle.
The general idea is that the reality principle is repressive and shapes the primary instincts and
pleasure in accordance with its own values. Next I detailed Marcuses adoption of these
principles and showed how the current prevailing form of the reality principle, the pleasure
principle, adds surplus repression that is unnecessary. The problem with this is that it does not
allow for freedom of the primary instincts, but rather represses them as they develop. Last, I
concluded that the idea of surplus repression is useful for reforming unnecessary repression in
our current society.

Page

14

PHL 820

Works Cited

Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilization. Boston: Beacon, 1974.

Moore, Dunston. Revolutionary Eros: The Transformation of Surplus Repression. Ethical
Perspectives. 8.3 (2001): 202-20.
Stirk, Peter M. R. Eros and Civilization Revisited. History of the Human Sciences. 12.1
(1999).

Page

15