AN UNDERSTANDING OF BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURES IN THE CONTEXT OF MARXIST CRITICISM

 

AN UNDERSTANDING OF BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURES IN THE CONTEXT OF MARXIST CRITICISM

The concept of base and superstructure are absolutely essential to Karl Marx theory of history. They form the fundamental metaphor which forms the basis of Marx’s own theory, and is critical to understanding later Marxist writers.

Marx used the metaphor of a building which has a base or foundation, and a superstructure, which is standing on it. The base determined the lives of people and drew limits within which the whole of social existence was enclosed. This base organized productive activity, and provided economic support to the people.

The definition of superstructure is a bit controversial. Did the superstructure run parallel to the base and existed independently? The Marxist answer to this question is that the superstructure is closely linked to the base and is affected by it. Marx acknowledges that the superstructure is an important causal factor, but asserts that the economic base is the fundamental causal influence. The classic exposition of Marx’s theory is the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy. He says:

“In the social production of their lives, men enter into relations that are specific, necessary, and independent of their will. The totality of these relations of production forms the economic structure of society, the real basis from which rises a legal and political superstructure. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life processes generally.”

If the economic base gives rise to the superstructure, we can say that the latter can have a causal influence in history, by affecting the base in some way or the other. But a superstructure cannot rise without the economic base, as the base is the fundamental causal influence in history.

Marx did not attempt a precise definition of the relationship between a base and a superstructure himself. Marx’s theory needs to be conceived on not only what Marx said on this subject, but also what others commented on his own discussions. Althusser, the French Marxist philosopher says that in a particular age, the economic base may not be dominant. For example, the Middle Ages were dominated by religion and politics. It means they were dominated by the superstructures. But it is the economic condition of that time which explains why the political and religious superstructures played the dominating role. So we can say that the economic base determines which factor is dominant in a society. The Slave economy made politics dominant in Athens, the Feudal economy made Catholicism dominant in medieval Europe, and the Capitalist economy has made the economy itself dominant in recent times.

According to Marxist philosopher, G.A. Cohen, the reason the superstructure arises is because it supports the economic base. The rise of Protestantism in 16th century Europe is explained by the favourable effect it had on promoting the capitalist relations of production which were being formed at that time. Protestantism was adopted by the nascent bourgeoisie because it furthered the economic interests, thereby strengthening the base. So we can say that the base got the superstructure it needed because it needed that particular superstructure

Cohen’s theory is compatible with Marx. Cohen attempts to demonstrate that Marx embraced a functionalist understanding of the relationship between base and superstructures. He cites from Capital and Grundisse  

…regulation and order are themselves indispensable elements of any mode of production, if it is to achieve social stability and independence from mere chance and arbitrariness

…every form of production creates its own legal relations.

Cohen simply elaborates what Marx left unanswered. Functional explanation of the superstructure is in tune with the spirit of Marx’s theory. Furthermore, Marx maintains that the mainstream ideas of a society serve the interests of the ruling class. “The ideas of the ruling class in every epoch are the ruling ideas” (Marx and Engels). The prevalent ideas of a society legitimise and stabilise the relation of production of a society. Similarly those relations are upheld by the state, since it acts in the interests of the ruling class.

For Marx it was necessary to emphasize the concept of base since it provided the solidity and materiality to the discourse of change. The change operates in the superstructure- politics, philosophy, religion, culture – while its effectiveness and significance is derived from its deep understanding of the mode of production. Thus the discourse of social change becomes from an idealist, philosophical exercise to one which works as a perceptible force and affects the areas of human existence – how people in a society produced goods for the common good, how they related to one another, and how they reacted to the questions of social admissibility and desirability, belief and allegiance.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ON JHUMPA LAHIRI’S WOMEN IN the “INTERPRETER OF MALADIES”

Image
  A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ON JHUMPA LAHIRI’S WOMEN IN the “INTERPRETER OF MALADIES” by Suparna Sinha ABSTRACT The objective of this paper is to analyze some of the women characters of Jhumpa Lahiri’s book, “Interpreter of Maladies” and infer whether her stories could also be termed as feminist literature. The trials and tribulations of the female diaspora some of who left their own country due to marriage or Partition, have been carefully examined in this article, and compared with the tenets of Feminism as outlined in Mary Wollstonecraft's `A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’. A humble attempt has been made to study the characterization of seven female characters of seven stories of the book. The women are diverse in age, education, financial status, marital status, country of origin and attitude. They are immigrants in Boston, like Mrs. Sen in “Mrs. Sen’s” and Mala in “The Third and Final Continent”, first generation immigrants like Mina in “Interpreter of Maladies” an...
Read more

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT’S VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN

Image
  A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT’S VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN   Mary Wollstonecraft belonged to a circle of intellectuals in London who were supporters of revolutionary ideals and fervour. They upheld the secession of the American colonies under the leadership of Richard Price. They also supported the ideals of the French Revolution. John Locke’s ideals influenced this group. She was born in 1759 into a family fraught with financial and other difficulties. Her mother was submissive to her husband, and after receiving his inheritance, her father led the family down the social scale through a series of failed farming ventures. He became a drunkard, and got brutal and abusive at home. Mary was helper and protector for her mother and siblings. She then went on to become a governess, founder of a day school, and joined a publishing house. She married William Godwin and became a mother of a baby girl, Mary, who later grew up to marry P.B. Shelley and wr...
Read more

KARL MARX - A SHORT LIFE SKETCH

Image
                                                                             KARL MARX The worker becomes all the poorer, the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity, the more commodities he creates. The increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.( Marx: Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844) The philosopher, social scientist, historian, and revolutionary, Karl Marx is without doubt the most influential socialist thinker of the nineteenth centur...
Read more