{"id":18660,"date":"2025-02-21T04:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-02-21T09:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=18660"},"modified":"2025-02-20T23:44:35","modified_gmt":"2025-02-21T04:44:35","slug":"herbert-marcuse-and-the-reality-of-sin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/concise\/herbert-marcuse-and-the-reality-of-sin\/","title":{"rendered":"Herbert Marcuse and the Reality of Sin"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Creation, fall, redemption, consummation. This familiar outline summarizes the whole biblical storyline and encompasses every major doctrine in Christian theology. But it might be argued that non-Christian worldviews\u2014even every worldview\u2014has a similar outline? Every worldview has to address where the world came from and what went (or is) wrong with it. Every worldview likewise offers some sort of solution to the problem, and some hope for what the world and society will be like if its problem is solved. The problem, of course, is that non-Christian worldviews get these doctrines wrong: for example, they may have a doctrine of sin (i.e., what is wrong with the world) but it isn\u2019t understood biblically as rebellion against the good and holy God who created all things good. In this article, I will examine the understanding of sin in one non-Christian thinker, Herbert Marcuse.[1]<\/a> Marcuse\u2019s thought was vital to the development of critical theory, and his skewed understanding of sin, as well as his faulty\u2014even wicked\u2014solution to the problem, continues to infect all levels of western society today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. This essay is adapted from my forthcoming book, What is Critical Theory: A Concise Christian Analysis<\/em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 2026).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Herbert Marcuse (1898\u20131979) is one of the most important thinkers of the twentieth century. Even if one has never heard of Marcuse or read him, his ideas permeate our culture in significant and deep ways. Marcuse is one of the early members of what is sometimes called the Frankfurt School (the key or founding school of the so-called Critical Theorists), a group Jewish and Marxist intellectuals in Germany, going back to 1920s. Besides Herbert Marcuse, key members of the Frankfurt School would include Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Walter Benjamin. (The seminal twentieth century philosopher J\u00fcrgen Habermas\u2014still living as of early 2025\u2014would eventually join the ranks of the Critical Theorists at the Frankfurt School).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Frankfurt School sought to explain a central problem: Why had the hoped for Marxist revolution not <\/em>occurred in Germany like it had occurred in Russia? If World War I (and eventually World War II) had not been enough of a world crisis to spur on the revolution, what would <\/em>bring about the anticipated and hoped-for revolution? These early Critical Theorists\u2014including Marcuse\u2014began to re-think and re-work their Marxism, and these theorists produced a significant amount of literature in which they considered how Marx and Marxism might have to be reconsidered, adjusted, and even rejected at times, to account for the failure of the revolution to materialize. Other issues were seen to be at stake\u2014especially issues of culture, religion, and the family. Man might not be simply <\/em>a material and economic creature after all (as Marxism seemed to presume). Perhaps Marx had not seen as far and wide as he needed to see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most important of the Critical Theorists was Herbert Marcuse, and he offered his own <\/em>understanding of the world and what had gone wrong with things. He had, in a sense, his own understanding of “sin.” I want to suggest that one way of interpreting the Critical Theorists is that they have their own understanding (or “doctrine”) of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

(1) Creation or the nature of reality (their own metaphysic)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) Sin<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3) Redemption, eschatology, and history<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Here, let us briefly look at the thought of Marcuse, keeping in mind that Marcuse has, in a sense, his own understanding of “sin” (i.e., what has gone wrong with the world).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Herbert Marcuse and the Reality of “Sin”<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For Marcuse, one of the marks of the \u201cone-dimensional\u201d society is that man has ceased (or has partially ceased) to realize his own great desire for full and free sexual expression. In short, the technological society has so shaped man that he has, in a sense, forgotten his true sexual desires and impulses (or has partially done so). Marcuse contrasts the \u201cPleasure Principle\u201d (i.e., we all really <\/em>desire to maximize unfettered sexual pleasure) with the \u201cReality Principle\u201d (i.e., to have society and order there must be a restraint on such unfettered sexual desire). But now, in our technological, one-dimensional society, the \u201cReality Principle no longer seems to require a sweeping and painful transformation [i.e., muting, suppressing] of instinctual needs [the Pleasure Principle].\u201d Indeed: \u201cThe individual must adapt himself to a world which does not seem to demand the denial of his innermost needs\u2014a world which is not essentially hostile.\u201d[2]<\/a> That is: we have become so conditioned by technological society, by our \u201cone-dimensional\u201d culture, that we no longer (basically) have a sense that our deepest (i.e., sexual) needs are not <\/em>being expressed and fulfilled and enjoyed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man<\/em> (Boston:\u00a0 Beacon Press, 1964), 74.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

For Marcuse, our dilemma is that we have forgotten who we really are and what we really want. Thus, Marcuse coins the phrase \u201cinstitutionalized desublimation.\u201d \u201cInstitutionalized\u201d is fairly straightforward: amidst our technological society, our one-dimensional culture so works that we forget our deeper and truer self (the one that wants\u2014rightly\u2014unfettered sexual pleasure). By \u201cdesublimation\u201d Marcuse means we can experience a limited amount and extent of sexual pleasure, and this pleasure is encouraged by our technological and capitalistic society. But this partial<\/em> fulfillment of our sexual pleasure can blind us to the fact that we are not experiencing the full<\/em> sexual freedom that we truly desire.[3]<\/a> Marcuse puts it this way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man<\/em>, 75-76.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
\n

This liberation of sexuality (and aggressiveness) [i.e., the kind of liberation encouraged by technological and capitalistic society] frees the instinctual drives from much of the unhappiness and discontent that elucidate the repressive power of the established universe of satisfaction.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

4. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, <\/em>76.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

For Marcuse this \u201cdesublimation\u201d may lessen a person\u2019s desire to seek full <\/em>liberation, and thus the person who experiences \u201cdesublimation\u201d may be almost unconsciously submitting to a \u201cone dimensional\u201d technological and capitalistic culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Turning from Sin Looks Like for Marcuse<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of Marcuse\u2019 key books is his 1955 Eros and Civilization<\/em>, subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud.<\/em>[5]<\/a> His thesis in Eros and Civilization <\/em>is quite clear: every effort must be made to liberate persons from anything that will inhibit a proper kind of erotic pleasure. Marcuse speaks positively of \u201cPolymorphous sexuality,\u201d and writes: \u201cthe new direction of progress would depend completely on the opportunity to activate repressed or arrested organic<\/em>, biological needs: to make the human body an instrument of pleasure rather than labor.\u201d[6]<\/a> In short, Marcuse is arguing that the forces and reality of \u201ccivilization\u201d mitigate against <\/em>erotic satisfaction. He writes: \u201cthe erotic energy of the Life Instincts cannot be freed under the dehumanizing conditions of profitable affluence.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
5. Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud<\/em> (Boston:\u00a0 Beacon Press, 1966 [originally published in 1955]).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, xv. Emphasis his.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, xxiii.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Marcuse takes for granted \u201cFreud\u2019s proposition that civilization is based on the permanent subjugation of the human instincts . . .\u201d[8]<\/a> Indeed: \u201cFree gratification of man\u2019s instinctual needs is incompatible with civilized society: renunciation and delay in satisfaction are the prerequisites of progress.\u201d[9]<\/a> And again: \u201cThe methodological sacrifice of libido, its rigidly enforced deflection to socially useful activities and expressions, is <\/em>culture.\u201d[10]<\/a> Hence, culture <\/em>is the culprit, for culture by its very existence <\/em>hampers or impedes the \u201cfree gratification of man\u2019s instinctual needs.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
8. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 3.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 3.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 3. Marcuse\u2019s emphasis.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 3.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Marcuse summarizes Freud\u2019s Pleasure Principle and Reality Principle as being in fundamental conflict.[12]<\/a> Like other Critical Theorists, \u201csociety\u201d or \u201ccivilization\u201d (the Reality Principle) mitigates against <\/em>true human freedom (the Pleasure Principle). As Marcuse writes: \u201cThe replacement of the pleasure principle by the reality principle is the great traumatic event in the development of man . . .\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
12. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 12-15.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 15.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In summarizing Freud, Marcuse does not hesitate to speak in architectonic terms of this struggle between the \u201cPleasure Principle\u201d and the \u201cReality Principle.\u201d As Marcuse writes: \u201cFreud considers the \u2018primordial struggle for existence\u2019 as \u2018eternal\u2019 and therefore believes that the pleasure principle and the reality principle are \u2018eternally\u2019 antagonistic.\u201d In short, we have something like <\/em>an older metaphysical and moral dualism. We have something like the old Manichean dualism between good and evil, but transposed into different categories: the \u201ceternal\u201d struggle between (1) the provenance of true freedom, which is sexual\u2014the Pleasure <\/em>Principle, and (2) that which constrains and leads to repression of one\u2019s desire\u2014the Reality <\/em>Principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only is \u201ccivilization\u201d in general<\/em> hostile to human well-being. Work in particular <\/em>is hostile to human well-being\u2014at least \u201cnon-libidinal\u201d work.  That is, work in itself is essentially hostile to true pleasure. Marcuse can write, \u201cLabor time, which is the largest part of the individual\u2019s life time, is painful time, for alienated labor is absence of gratification, negation of the pleasure principle.\u201d[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 45.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

This can be confusing. What Marcuse is getting at (at least in his own time, this book was written in 1955) is that work in the West is generally \u201calienated\u201d from one\u2019s deepest desire for pleasure. It is non \u201clibidinal\u201d work\u2014work disconnected from the \u201cpleasure principle\u201d (which again is primarily sexual). In order to have a functioning society, the \u201creality principle\u201d must dominate over the \u201cpleasure principle.\u201d So, in general, work can be seen as a part of the \u201creality principle\u201d\u2014a principle or realm in fundamental conflict with the \u201cpleasure principle.\u201d So, as Marcuse sees it, as far as Freud worked things out, he was fundamentally right\u2014at least it seems. What Marcuse does\u2014here moving past <\/em>Freud\u2014is suggest that there is a way for the pleasure <\/em>principle to be dominant. Or to put it more subtly, there is a way for every aspect <\/em>of human life to be \u201clibidinal,\u201d to become sexualized. That is: a new <\/em>reality principle must, and can, be forged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marcuse strikingly gives voice to Freud\u2019s understanding of sexual desire, and how his understanding relates to more traditional understandings of sexuality. As Marcuse summarizes Freud, before civilization comes into being and clashes with the deepest, unfettered sex instinct, \u201csexuality is by nature \u2018polymorphous-perverse\u2019.\u201d[15]<\/a> As society (the \u201creality principle\u201d) comes to dominate, society condemns or marginalizes \u201cas perversions<\/em> practically all its [i.e., the sex instinct\u2019s] manifestations which do not serve or prepare for the procreative function.\u201d[16]<\/a> As Freud saw things, sexual experience apart from <\/em>that which is directed toward procreation promises more <\/em>pleasure than sexual relations directed to <\/em>procreation. <\/em>What is the source of such a promise of increased sexual bliss promised by such perversions?: \u201ctheir rejection of the procreative sex act.\u201d[17]<\/a> What Marcuse says next is striking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
15. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 49.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 49.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 49.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

The perversions thus express rebellion against the subjugation of sexuality under the order of procreation, and against the institutions which guarantee this order.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

18. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 49.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In short, these various sexual perversions are rebelling against the notion that sexuality has as a key goal the procreation of children, and these same perversions are in rebellion against the institutions which encourage such a traditional sexuality: and certainly the key institutions in mind here must be the traditional family as well as traditional religious organizations (including the church).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marcuse continues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Psychoanalytic theory sees in the practices that exclude or prevent procreation an opposition against continuing the chain of reproduction and thereby paternal domination\u2014an attempt to prevent the \u201creappearance of the father.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

19. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 49.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In short, as Marcuse understands Freud (and Marcuse seems to approve of Freud at this point), the various sexual practices that \u201cexclude\u201d or \u201cprevent\u201d procreation are a way of resisting, stopping, halting \u201cpaternal domination,\u201d or what in more recent decades would simply be called \u201cthe patriarchy.\u201d[20]<\/a> It is important not to miss this. For Marcuse, the link between (1) sexual pleasure and (2) procreation is a link which should be challenged, or rejected, or at least mitigated. The block quote just above is central. Marcuse sees in \u201cthe practices that exclude or prevent procreation\u201d a helpful and necessary reality. These \u201cpractices\u201d\u2014practices that \u201cexclude or prevent procreation\u201d\u2014are good and right practices that can help to resist patriarchy or \u201cpaternal domination.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

20. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 49.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

This kind of thinking has borne fruit even today. There was a notable anecdote at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in the stream of Marcuse\u2019s philosophy: a mobile clinic offering free abortion and free vasectomies. I think it is highly unlikely that the organizers of this initiative were sitting around reading either Eros and Civilization <\/em>or One-Dimensional Man<\/em>. But, this particular \u201cpractice\u201d\u2014a mobile clinic offering free abortions and free vasectomies\u2014can rightly be interpreted as conceptually linked to, and ideologically quite consistent with, the voice and counsel of Herbert Marcuse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here again we see something of the \u201cgnostic\u201d tendency of Critical Theory. It is not that civilization can <\/em>be destructive, or might <\/em>do harm, or will possibly at times<\/em> lead to conflict. Rather, civilization\u2014in its essence\u2014is<\/em> destructive, harmful, or full of conflict. As Marcuse writes: \u201cthe very progress of civilization leads to the release of increasingly destructive forces.\u201d[21]<\/a> The Christian can most certainly <\/em>say that after the fall, civilization will indeed <\/em>be filled with destruction, harm, and conflict. But the Critical Theorists appear to inject such destruction, harm, and conflict, into the very essence and nature of things<\/em>. Indeed, as Freud himself wrote, his intention in Civilization and Its Discontents<\/em> is as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

21. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 54.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
\n

to represent the sense of guilt as the most important problem in the development of civilization and to show that the price we pay for our advance in civilization is a loss of happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

22. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents<\/em>, translated and edited by James Strachey (New York and London:\u00a0 W.W. Norton & Company, 1961), 97. There are numerous editions of this work. This quote comes from the first page of chapter eight, where Freud is summarizing the entire work.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

It is also important to keep in mind that with Marcuse, the development of the traditional family is a part of the problem<\/em>. Thus, \u201cthe reduction of Eros to procreative-monogamic sexuality [i.e., traditional marriage between one man and one woman] . . . is consummated only when the individual has become a subject-object of labor in the apparatus of his society . . .\u201d[23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

23. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 90.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In an intriguing way, Marcuse has his own version of a creation and fall motif. As Marcuse summarizes Freud, once upon a time there was a Camelot. In Marcuse\u2019s \u201cpre-fall\u201d world the \u201cpleasure principle\u201d and the \u201creality principle\u201d co-existed peacefully. What disrupted this peaceful co-existence?: civilization. Thus, as Marcuse works this out, civilization \u201ccan develop only through the destruction of the subhistorical unity between pleasure principle and reality principle.\u201d[24]<\/a> That is: as man forged civilization, this happy co-existence between the pleasure principle and the reality principle could no longer remain. But Marcuse thinks Freud came up short in thinking through possibilities for a better future. Freud could <\/em>have done better than he did, as Marcuse sees it. What Marcuse wants to do is to move beyond <\/em>what Freud concluded, but to do so by being consistent with <\/em>Freud himself. In short: Marcuse believed that it was possible to forge a new reality principle<\/em>, in which \u201crepression\u201d would be unnecessary. This \u201cnew reality principle\u201d is essentially Marcuse\u2019s redemptive story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

24. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization<\/em>, 147.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If we get the doctrine of sin wrong, the rest of our worldview falls apart. Because Herbert Marcuse understands the human problem (\u201csin\u201d) as the institutionalized repression of sexual desire, his version of \u201credemption\u201d entails a fundamental challenge, not only to civilization, but to each and every family. As our culture drifts farther away from the biblical worldview, our churches must redouble our commitment to teaching and preaching on sin: sin is rebellion against God, violation of his law, and breach of covenant\u2014all driven by the exaltation of the self over against God. It is the exchange of God\u2019s truth for a lie, and the worship of the creature rather than the creator. Let us never exchange the bible\u2019s view of sin for weak, man-centered counterfeits. If we do, the rest of our theology will soon follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Getting the doctrine of sin wrong means our entire worldview falls apart. Herbert Marcuse is one such example.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":18662,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"Getting the doctrine of sin wrong means our entire worldview falls apart. Herbert Marcuse is one such example.","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[32,12,1968,38],"tags":[956,823,57,1013,102,1551,235,1280,1309,669,493,2011,677,417,474,122,100],"scripture-reference":[],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[29],"class_list":["post-18660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article","category-concise","category-february-2025","category-theme","tag-anthropology","tag-christ","tag-christ-as-center","tag-critical-theory","tag-gospel","tag-herbert-marcuse","tag-human-nature","tag-humanity","tag-judgement","tag-justification","tag-morality","tag-responsibility","tag-scripture","tag-sigmund-freud","tag-sin","tag-theology","tag-worldview"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Green-Marcuse-Article-scaled-e1740068482324.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:45:16","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":29,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"brad-green","display_name":"Brad Green","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/brad-green.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/brad-green.jpg"},"author_category":"","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"Green","first_name":"Brad","church_site":"","user_url":"http:\/\/bradleyggreen.com","description":"Bradley G. Green<\/b> is Professor of Theological Studies at Union University (Jackson, TN), and is Professor of Philosophy and Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) . He is the author of several articles and books, including The Gospel and the Mind: Recovering and Shaping the Intellectual Life<\/I> (Crossway); Covenant and Commandment: Works, Obedience, and Faithfulness in the Christian Life<\/i> (New Studies in Biblical Theology, IVP); Augustine: His Life and Impact<\/i> (Christian Focus). Brad is a member of First Baptist Church (Jackson, TN), where he works with college students."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18660"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18660\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18668,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18660\/revisions\/18668"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18662"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18660"},{"taxonomy":"scripture-reference","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/scripture-reference?post=18660"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=18660"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=18660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}