Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
HAVE YOUR DONATION DOUBLED!

If you are able to donate $100 or more for our Annual Fund Drive, your donation will be matched by another generous CounterPuncher! These are tough times. Regardless of the political rhetoric bantered about the airwaves, the recession hasn’t ended for most of us. We know that money is tight for many of you. But we also know that tens of thousands of daily readers of CounterPunch depend on us to slice through the smokescreen and tell it like is. Please, donate if you can!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Frankfurt School and Hugh Hefner

by

To say that a figure of the past is “good” or “bad” is not just oversimplification, it’s an intellectual cliche that lingers on boredom.  Undeniably, Hugh Hefner will go down in history as an incredibly controversial figure.  For many people, he deserves praise for his role in the sexual revolution.  For others, he was simply an abusive creep.  Much can be said about Hugh Hefner’s degradation of women that is awfully true in more respects than most people would like to admit.

However, if the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School taught us anything, it’s that society and culture have been so mutilated by the routines and pressures of late capitalism, that the shortcomings of imperfect individuals within the culture industry are more importantly reflections of widespread social sicknesses, such as the ideology of male supremacy.

Theodor Adorno, the most widely known intellectual of the Frankfurt School, argued that the femininity of women is a product of masculine society.  In Minima Moralia, he wrote:

The feminine character, and the ideal of femininity on which it is modeled, are products of masculine society. The image of undistorted nature arises only in distortion, as its opposite.  Where it claims to be humane, masculine society imperiously breeds in woman its own corrective, and shows itself through this limitation implacably the master.

Hefner’s reproduction of women in photos, moving pictures, and live performances distorted their nature.  As the master, he conformed the image of women to his vision of human nature.  When confronted with the objectification of women in a 2010 Vanity Fair interview, Hefner was open about his view of human nature: “But they are objects!”  Earlier in a VH1 documentary, he remarked that “the notion that women are sexual objects is what makes the world go round.”  It’s hard to think of a clearer statement of one’s worldview.

Hugh Hefner openly shared his groundbreaking vision for Playboy that went ‘against the grain’ of the mainstream.  As a self-made crusader of the sexual revolution, he railed against the austere and repressive influences of Puritan society on American sexuality: “I saw the craziness of our puritan attitudes toward sex, and there was a significant new generation who felt the same way.”  It’s true that Hefner supported civil rights, abortion rights, and gay rights throughout the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s, but one must not equate a handful of liberal values as a truly radical vision.

Frankfurt School philosopher and sociologist Herbert Marcuse’s concept of repressive desublimation demonstrated that Hugh Hefner’s imagination was quite limited in its aims to transform the status quo.  First coined in his 1964 book One-Dimensional Man as a Freudian-Marxist critique of the sexual revolution, repressive desublimation posits that industrial capitalism commodified the much of 20th century art, removing many of the revolutionary and transcendental impulses that it once had.  Where art once offered a controlled stream of pleasure that came with patient analysis and appreciation, modern art offers immediate gratification in a way that removes the life from its liberating potential.  More than anything, Marcuse helps us understand that Hefner’s deluded self-image as a progressive crusader was predicated upon his ambition to create and sell an edgy image of Playboy magazine to a demographic of men who saw that the taboo on sex was fading.  As Barabara Ehnreich wrote most clearly: “The magazine’s real message was not eroticism but escape from the bondage of breadwinning. Sex — or Hefner’s Pepsi-clean version of it — was there to legitimize what was truly subversive about Playboy. In every issue, in every month, there was a Playmate to prove that a playboy didn’t have to be a husband to be a man.”

Lastly, Hefner experienced a sense of shock when he was confronted with the reality that male-engendered femininity is sustained by symbolic, psychological, and physical violence.  On the Dick Cavett show in 1970, feminist Susan Brownmiller unexpectedly berated Hefner for his concealment of women’s oppression:

Hugh Hefner is my enemy.  Hugh Hefner has built an empire based on oppressing women.  The role that you have selected for women is degrading to women because you choose to see women as sex objects, which deny their humanity and their femininity.

Most striking, is Hefner’s comment in hindsight that he “didn’t have the language for responding to that kind of thing.”  One can only guess what he was thinking, but what is clear is that there was nothing that he could respond with that would be publicly acceptable.  He would have to reinvent Playboy’s message in a way that conformed to the progressive values of the 1960s.  Social movements were defining the terrain of an acceptable language, that Playboy be forced to navigate.  Adorno writes: “the femininity which appeals to instinct, is always exactly what every woman has to force herself by violence – masculine violence – to be: a she-man.”  Truthfully, symbolic violence is required to recreate ideas about instinct and human nature that reinforce male supremacy.

Soon after his encounter with Brownmiller, Hefner counterattacked in an internal memo: “These chicks are our natural enemy. What I want is a devastating piece that takes the militant feminists apart. They are unalterably opposed to the romantic boy-girl society that Playboy promotes.”

Looking back, Hugh Hefner was a pioneering product of male superiority and the culture industry of late capitalism.  Pioneering, in that he reinvented male domination under the veil of human nature.  Of his first marriage that failed, Hefner wrote: “It doomed us from the start. But I think it gave me permission to live the life I’ve lived.”  Perhaps there is a hint of vengeful misogyny here, but it shows that what really drove Hefner was his ideology that was routinized by habit, custom, and failure.

As Adorno wrote: “Whatever is in the context of bourgeois delusion called nature, is merely the scar of social mutilation. If the psychoanalytical theory is correct that women experience their physical constitution as a consequence of castration, their neurosis gives them an inkling of the truth.”

More articles by:
October 19, 2017
Farhang Jahanpour
Europe Must Stop Trump From Starting Another War in the Middle East
John W. Whitehead
The Experiment in Freedom is Failing
Karen Hicks
Make Big Pharma Pay for the Opioid Crisis
Patrick Cockburn
Why the Palestinian Unity Deal Might Not Change Much
Lawrence Davidson
A State for the Kurds?
Joseph Grosso
Guns, Drugs, and Suicide: Death in America
Desiree Hellegers
“Unnatural Causes”: “Unnatural Causes”: Health Takes a Hit in Portland, Oregon
Binoy Kampmark
Vengeful in Defeat: Hillary Clinton Fantasizes About WikiLeaks
Robert Fisk
ISIS Has Lost Raqqa, Where Will It Go Next?
Pepe Escobar
Why Trump Has Gone Nuclear on Iran
Jenny Clegg
Will the US and China Go to War?
George Ochenski
Seduced by Greed: the Perils of Environmental Collaboration
Phyllis Bennis
Decertifying the Iran Deal: Trump’s Most Reckless Move?
Arnold Oliver
Bring Back Armistice Day and Honor the Real Heroes
John Eskow
Witch Hunt TV: You Can Trust MSNBC, Really….
Kim C. Domenico
In Search of Moral Energy in the Neoliberal Wasteland: a Preferential Option for the Poor Soul
October 18, 2017
Patrick Cockburn
Seizing Kirkuk
John Wight
Weinstein as Symptom: Notes From Hollywood
Matthew Hoh
Bowe Bergdahl: Traitor to American Exceptionalism and White Supremacy
Chris Ernesto
Funding for War vs. Natural Disasters
Aidan O'Brien
Where’s Duterte From and Where’s He Going To?
Jon Bailes
Mental Health and Neoliberalism: an Interview with William Davies
Ramzy Baroud
The Real Reason Behind Trump’s Angry Diplomacy in North Korea
Paul Craig Roberts
Washington, Not China, is the Biggest Threat to American Power
Mike Davis
El Diablo in Wine Country
Binoy Kampmark
Trump’s Iran Deal
Lara Merling
Remember Puerto Rico Needs Fair Medicaid Funding Too
Phil Rockstroh
2 or 3 Things I Know About Capitalism
Eoghan O’Suilleabhain
Rambo Wept: Our Commandos Good, Your Terrorists Bad
Dimitris Bellantis
On Catalonia: Debates in the Greek Left
Robert Koehler
The Calm Before the Storm
Mike Hastie
Napalm Sticks to Kids
October 17, 2017
Suzanne Gordon – Ian Hoffmann
Trumpcare for Veterans? VA Outsourcing Will Create Healthcare Industry Bonanza
Patrick Cockburn
The Real Destabilizer in the Middle East is Not Iran But Trump
Jonathan Cook
The Real Reasons Trump is Quitting UNESCO
Murtaza Shibli
My Friend From ISIS in Raqqa
Kathy Kelly
Wrongful Rhetoric and Trump’s Strategy on Iran
David Bonner
Beyond Taking a Knee: Duane Thomas, Where are You When We Need You?
Tom Gill
Austerity, Macron-Style
Liaquat Ali Khan
Pakistan Faces a Life-Threatening Military Coup
Jeff Mackler
Is Trump a ‘Moron?’
Amena Elashkar
If You Work for Justice in Palestine, Why Won’t You Let Palestinians Speak?
John Feffer
Trump’s Unprecedented Right-Turn on Foreign Policy
Ariel Dorfman
Trump’s War on the Mind
Dean Baker
The Republican Tax Plan to Slow Growth
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail