Thread by @TheLitCritGuy

On Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory and Raymond Williams, a thread.

#TheoryTime?

Williams argues that any coherent attempt to construct a viable Marxist theory of cultural analysis usually begins with the proposition of a determining base and a determined superstructure

(Williams writes that in many ways it might be preferable to start from the proposition that it is social being which determines consciousness but this isn't necessarily in conflict with the base/superstructure idea)

So, very simply: capitalist society has a base (its means of production and the relations of production) and the superstructure which consists of the ideology tools which uphold that base.

As an aside we frequently talk about the superstructure but in Marx's German the term is easily translatable as plural...

So, the first question (if we accept this model) is the nature of the relationship between the base and superstructure - the nature of the "determination" that links these two aspects of capitalist society.

The first and simplest model is the reflection or direct reproduction of the base in the ideological superstructure in a 'more or less direct way.'

But, as Williams points out since, 'in many real cultural activities this relationship cannot be found, or cannot be found without effort or even violence to the material or practice being studied,' this understanding of the relationship was abandoned.

A slightly more complicated understanding focused on the nature of the interaction between the two usually conceptualised in terms of "homologous structures" and "mediation" as terms to explain the interaction between the two

One thing that Williams focuses upon is the idea that to understand the realities of cultural processes the base is probably more important than a focus upon ideological superstructures.

Too often, Williams claims, the base is treated as a kind of inert object, upon which the ideological superstructure "acts" but, as Williams notes, the base is the real social existence of man.

Or, to put that in older Marxist terminology, ideological superstructures necessarily comes after the development of means of production and the instantiation of capitalist relations of production.

Futhermore, as Marx details throughout Capital (*check out the guide I wrote to the first three chapters*) there are contradictions and tensions between relations of production and the consequent social relations, which means that the base of a society is dynamic not static.

In short, in Marxist cultural theory, when we talk of a base we are talking about a process and not a state.

As a result, Williams sees the "determination" of the base as more of a process of setting limits and applying pressure rather than "predicted, prefigured and controlled content. "

Williams redefines superstructure towards a range of cultural processes and practices and away from simply 'reflected' content.

In contrast to the base/superstructure model, there's another development in Marxist cultural theory worth talking about - namely, the idea of the social totality (pioneered by thinkers such as Lukàcs)

The idea of Social totality is one that Williams seems enthusiastic about, but for the reservation that "it is very easy for the notion of totality to empty of its essential content the original Marxist proposition"

The point that Williams wishes to defend is the idea of a process of determination - some relationship between forces of production and ideological structures.

Or, as Williams goes on to write:

Yes, the original "crude" superstructure model might be reductive but in terms of 'all kinds of social apparatus' if "we fail to see a superstructural element we fail to recognize reality at all..."

These social apparatus, laws, conventions, practices and ideologies which are claimed as 'natural' or as having some kind of universal significance "simply have to be seen as expressing and ratifying the domination of a particular class.."

Thus, the challenge of revising the base superstructure model is the danger that, by not fighting the contingency of ideological structures, it becomes impossible to see the class character of a given society.

If we are to revise the model of base and superstructure the perhaps it is in Gramsci's notion of hegemony that we can talk of a social totality and retain an understanding of the class character of society

Here we start to see the more dynamic model of cultural theory which Williams has been looking for:

(Here it feels like Williams has a lot in common with Althusser's understanding of ideology as the necessary conditions of action within a specific social formation.)

Ideological superstructures are not just imposed - if that were the case they would be easy enough to move past - but given the flexibility of ideology, where does that leave us?

But whilst counter-culture and counter ideological movements and practices can exist under a dominant hegemony, the possibility of the existence of opposition depends upon very precise social and political forces - class struggle still matters.

That said, later cultural theorists like Mark Fisher would argue that those forces of opposition have been so rigorously Incorporated into dominant hegemonic forces real opposition doesn't really exist

So in light of Williams arguments about the base/superstructure model, whatever the relationship between art and society that relationship cannot be considered in abstract terms.

Literature, for example, is a distinct societal practice but cannot be separated from social processes in general.

This truth exposes much by way of the ideological nature of English literature - that which as James Kelman said is written by and for people with money.

..and, as Williams pointed out: 'Most writing, in any period, including our own, is a form of contribution to the effective dominant culture...'

As Williams puts it, in along paragraph towards the end of his essay:

But if we are to understand literature as a process then it requires us to stop theorizing about literature as if it were an object. There is no Hamlet writes Williams (as Eagleton would develop later in his book Literary Theory)

So rather than just another method of consuming objects Marxist criticism allows an understanding of a specific cultural practice and its wider conditions.

If we reject the idea of understanding of texts as objects and see instead the reality of cultural production and process we find ourselves beginning to understanding a wide complex of extending active relationships (to use Williams phrase).

I'll stop there. Can't believe it's taken me so long to cover a Williams essay.

If you enjoy these thread, buy me a coffee: ko-fi.com/A736KL3

Alternatively, you can support me through Patreon here: patreon.com/TheLitCritGuy

Or, buy me a book! amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/wi…