..., as the Marxist critic Herbert Marcuse has proposed [closed]

Question

Two questions regarding the following paragraph:

First question: Which meaning is grammatically true for the first bold lines? (My problem is to know what the sentence "as the Marxist critic Herbert Marcuse has proposed" refers to)

1. According to Herbert Marcuse's belief, the reason for such behavior to Steiner was that the experience of Beauty in the eighteenth century was not an affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity.

2. the reason for such behavior to Steiner was that in contrast with Herbert Marcuse's belief, the experience of Beauty in the eighteenth century was not an affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity.

Second Question: Does the final sentence of the paragraph want to say:

Now, does not have Steiner any role in the conflict between feminists and the Marxists?

Context:

Steiner may be recognising a hitherto suppressed feminine aesthetic but even to dare to speak of beauty seriously is to lay herself open to accusations of naivety, self-deception and a lack of humour. And, also, of course, of gross political incorrectness. For was not the experience of Beauty largely reconstructed in the eighteenth century as an affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity, as the Marxist critic Herbert Marcuse has proposed? Rich and powerful men desire to possess it as a sign of their wealth and power – their lovely architectures and landscaped vistas, their art and clothes, their beautiful women and children, indicative of their superior position, health and happiness. In the grumbling skirmishes between the feminists and the Marxists, is Steiner not complicit with this state of affairs?

Answer 1

The Marxist critic Herbert Marcuse proposed that the experience of Beauty largely reconstructed in the eighteenth century was an affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity. By recognising a hitherto suppressed feminine aesthetic, Steiner is disagreeing with Herbert Marcuse. Therefore, in the grumbling skirmishes between the feminists and the Marxists, Steiner was accused of being complicit with a state of affairs wherein rich and powerful men desire to possess Beauty as a sign of their wealth and power.

Update in response to comments: You have to understand that Marxism regards language as a weapon, and concepts like Beauty as capitalist propaganda. Therefore for Steiner to claim that "beauty" is a legitimate concept, is for her to imply that Marxism (Herbert Marcuse) is wrong and the bourgeois view is correct. Under the bourgeois view, we have a state of affairs wherein "rich and powerful men desire to possess beauty as a sign of their wealth and power". Some Marxists accuse Steiner of being complicit with this state of affairs. In other words, of being on the side of the "bourgeois capitalists". Because she was recognising a hitherto suppressed feminine aesthetic. Which disagrees with Marxism. Making her their enemy.

Answer 2

These are rhetorical questions. Negative questions like this often imply the positive assertion, as in

You should be able to write better than that. Didn't you get an A in English Composition?

So the implies that Marcuse proposed that the experience of beauty probably was reconstructed in the eighteenth century as an affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity. And the second suggests that Steiner probably is complicit with the skirmishes.

Answer 3

Neither of your paraphrases is correct.

... as the Marxist critic Herbert Marcuse has proposed

This phrase attributes to Marcuse the proposition that in the 18th century the aesthetic category of Beauty was 'reconstructed' (redefined) in terms which imputed Beauty primarily to the sorts of things (lovely architectures and landscaped vistas, art and clothes, beautiful women and children) which rich and powerful men desire to possess as signs of their wealth and power.

The author suggests that Steiner's speaking seriously about beauty puts her on a collision course with the Marxist understanding of that aesthetic category as an affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity. This exposes her to (Marxist) charges of naivety, self-deception, humourlessness, and, especially, political incorrectness. In reviving the outdated category of Beauty, Steiner makes herself (from the Marxist point of view) "complicit with this state of affairs"—that is, an ally of those who seek wealth and power.

Incidentally, you can mostly ignore the reference to Marcuse, whose understanding of bourgeois aesthetics was far subtler than that of the doctrinaire Marxists whom the author posits as critics of Steiner's position.