Base and superstructure in marxist cultural theory

Raymond Henry Williams was born on 31 August 1921. He was a Welsh academic, novelist, renowned critic and an influential figure in the New Left. His writings on politics, culture, the mass media and literature are some of the major contributions to the Marxist critique of culture and the arts. His works are crucial in the field of cultural studies and the cultural materialist approach.
Raymond Williams in his essay, Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory chooses to begin his critique with the proposition that social beings determine consciousness rather than the conventional model of analyzing Marxist theory by establishing the relation between the base and superstructure. He dwells back to the linguistic roots of the word ‘determines’ and follows its inversion pattern in its English translation. ‘Determines’ is derived from the idealistic and theological account of world and man. He also brings in the idea that in European language there is a possibility of synonyms which might alter the meaning of a word. He brings about two possible meanings to the word ‘determines’, which can either be an external cause which is controlled, prefigured and predicted or can be seen as setting limits and extending pressure.
Williams examines the predominant terms in Marxist theory mainly the model of base and superstructure as expressed through the title itself. One of the established definition of superstructure is, “…the reflection, the imitation or the reproduction of the base in the superstructure in more or less direct way”. Since such a proposition can be contested due to the non-economical basis of some actions, such as philosophy and other such fields. Thus the above stated proposition of Marxist definition of superstructure could be contested. The notion of reflection and reproduction was changed in the later coined notion of ‘mediation’ in which something more than reflection and reproduction actively occurred. In the twentieth century there was the notion of ‘homogeneous structures’ which was thought to be a basic homology or correspondence in all structures which can be discovered thorough the process of research. Williams also harps on the proposition of base being more crucial and vital for understanding the realities of cultural process. Base is never static or uniform since there are deep contradictions in the relationships of production thereby effecting the social relations. The base can thus be seen as a continuous process and not as being static. Williams talks about revaluing notions in order to place them in the contemporary reality of times. He argues that Marxist ideology is based on a certain economic structure which might be ambiguous when placed in the modern cultural scenario which is fast changing.
Another key Marxist concept which has influenced many other Marxist thinkers and is also associated to Georg Lukacs in particular is the concept of totality. One flaw in the concept of totality is that it can easily empty itself of the cultural phenomena attached to any concept. Thus the question put forth through the essay is “whether the notion of totality includes the notion of intention.” Williams also argues the basis of classifying a certain work as belonging to the base or superstructure. He contests the idea of categorizing work of art as superstructure. He argues that ‘totality’ should be combined with the concept of hegemony so that asymmetrical and exploitative aspects of the society are not overlooked. Williams find the traditional notion of superstructure incomplete and ambiguous and shows his fear on the proposed concept of hegemony being viewed in a similar static and stereotypical manner. He also talks about the modern concept of reinventing, re-modify and rework on the existing notions and concepts. Such concepts change from place to place and time to time.
Williams also introduces the distinction between residual and emergent form of different kinds of culture. He defines residual culture as a practice which has evolved or rooted out from a previously existing dominant culture. Some of the religious practices which are influenced from the mainstream practices could serve as examples. William associates emergent culture with the newly evolving cultural practices, which demand to be incorporated within the mainstream practice. Thus they are neither an individual part nor completely accepted in the mainstream. Such cultural practices are in a limbo like situation. According to Williams one of the way in which ‘emergent’ can be seen is the emergence of a new class and a new consciousness. He says the emergent culture will be valued and recognized if the dominant culture has a stake or interest on it. Otherwise an evolving culture might not receive due acknowledgement or recognition. For instance, artistic pursuits are encouraged till the time profit is made and it doesn’t contradict the dominant beliefs. William also raises the issue of the connection between literature and society and concludes that literature evolves from the society and thus can’t be separated from the society and evaluated. It is an integral part of the society. William says that any form of writing is highly influenced by the dominant cultural practices in the society. Literature thus coexists as a part of the dominant culture and becomes a prime mode of its articulation.
Most critics seem to give little emphasis on the process of production. But Marxist model through its base and superstructure metaphor tries to stress and acknowledge the process of production. Williams puts forth the contradiction of cultural theory as the work of art being perceived as an object and the alternative view of art as a practice. Art can be seen as an object, i.e. buildings, sculptures etc which exist as objects, on the other hand the phenomenal work of Shakespeare, the melody of music and other art forms such as dance, drama etc are perceived as a practice. Williams says that we shouldn’t look for the components of a product but for the conditions of practice. He says an active and self renewing mode of analysis is what is needed to understand the cultural context and value of any studied material.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu