Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory - New Left ...

In many uses of the proposition of base and superstructure, as a matter of verbal habit, 'the base' has come to be considered virtually as an ... BacktoissueI/82•Nov/Dec1973NLRI/82,November–December1973I/82,NovDec1973RaymondWilliamsBaseandSuperstructureinMarxistCulturalTheoryShare AnymodernapproachtoaMarxisttheoryofculturemustbeginbyconsideringthepropositionofadeterminingbaseandadeterminedsuperstructure.Fromastrictlytheoreticalpointofviewthisisnot,infact,wherewemightchoosetobegin. footnote1 Itwouldbeinmanywayspreferableifwecouldbeginfromapropositionwhichoriginallywasequallycentral,equallyauthentic:namelythepropositionthatsocialbeingdeterminesconsciousness.Itisnotthatthetwopropositionsnecessarilydenyeachotherorareincontradiction.Butthepropositionofbaseandsuperstructure,withitsfigurativeelement,withitssuggestionofadefiniteandfixedspatialrelationship,constitutes,atleastincertainhands,averyspecializedandattimesunacceptableversionoftheotherproposition.YetinthetransitionfromMarxtoMarxism,andinthedevelopmentofmainstreamMarxismitself,thepropositionofthedeterminingbaseandthedeterminedsuperstructurehasbeencommonlyheldtobethekeytoMarxistculturalanalysis. Nowitisimportant,aswetrytoanalysethisproposition,tobeawarethatthetermofrelationshipwhichisinvolved,thatistosay‘determines’,isofgreatlinguisticandrealcomplexity.Thelanguageofdeterminationandevenmoreofdeterminismwasinheritedfromidealistandespeciallytheologicalaccountsoftheworldandman.Itissignificantthatitisinoneofhisfamiliarinversions,hiscontradictionsofreceivedpropositions,thatMarxusestheword‘determines’.Heisopposinganideologythathadbeeninsistentonthepowerofcertainforcesoutsideman,or,initssecularversion,onanabstractdeterminingconsciousness.Marx’sownpropositionexplicitlydeniesthis,andputstheoriginofdeterminationinmen’sownactivities.Nevertheless,theparticularhistoryandcontinuityofthetermservestoremindusthatthereare,withinordinaryuse—andthisistrueofmostofthemajorEuropeanlanguages—quitedifferentpossiblemeaningsandimplicationsoftheword‘determine’.Thereis,ontheonehand,fromitstheologicalinheritance,thenotionofanexternalcausewhichtotallypredictsorprefigures,indeedtotallycontrolsasubsequentactivity.Butthereisalso,fromtheexperienceofsocialpractice,anotionofdeterminationassettinglimits,exertingpressures.Nowthereisclearlyadifferencebetweenaprocessofsettinglimitsandexertingpressures,whetherbysomeexternalforceorbytheinternallawsofaparticulardevelopment,andthatotherprocessinwhichasubsequentcontentisessentiallyprefigured,predictedandcontrolledbyapre-existingexternalforce.Yetitisfairtosay,lookingatmanyapplicationsofMarxistculturalanalysis,thatitisthesecondsense,thenotionofprefiguration,predictionorcontrol,whichhasoftenexplicitlyorimplicitlybeenused.Thetermofrelationshipisthenthefirstthingthatwehavetoexamineinthisproposition,butwehavetodothisbygoingontolookattherelatedtermsthemselves.‘Superstructure’hashadmostattention.Peoplecommonlyspeakof‘thesuperstructure’,althoughitisinterestingthatoriginally,inMarx’sGerman,thetermisinoneimportantuseplural.Otherpeoplespeakofthedifferentactivities‘inside’thesuperstructureorsuperstructures.NowalreadyinMarxhimself,inthelatercorrespondenceofEngels,andatmanypointsinthesubsequentMarxisttradition,qualificationshavebeenmadeaboutthedeterminedcharacterofcertainsuperstructuralactivities.Thefirstkindofqualificationhadtodowithdelaysintime,withcomplications,andwithcertainindirectorrelativelydistantrelationships.Thesimplestnotionofasuperstructure,whichisstillbynomeansentirelyabandoned,hadbeenthereflection,theimitationorthereproductionoftherealityofthebaseinthesuperstructureinamoreorlessdirectway.Positivistnotionsofreflectionandreproductionofcoursedirectlysupportedthis.Butsinceinmanyrealculturalactivitiesthisrelationshipcannotbefound,orcannotbefoundwithouteffortorevenviolencetothematerialorpracticebeingstudied,thenotionwasintroducedofdelaysintime,thefamouslags;ofvarioustechnicalcomplications;andofindirectness,inwhichcertainkindsofactivityintheculturalsphere—philosophy,forexample—weresituatedatagreaterdistancefromtheprimaryeconomicactivities.Thatwasthefirststageofqualificationofthenotionofsuperstructure:ineffect,anoperationalqualification.Thesecondstagewasrelatedbutmorefundamental,inthattheprocessoftherelationshipitselfwasmoresubstantiallylookedat.Thiswasthekindofreconsiderationwhichgaverisetothemodernnotionof‘mediation’,inwhichsomethingmorethansimplereflectionorreproduction—indeedsomethingradicallydifferentfromeitherreflectionorreproduction—activelyoccurs.Inthelatertwentiethcenturythereisthenotionof‘homologousstructures’,wheretheremaybenodirectoreasilyapparentsimilarity,andcertainlynothinglikereflectionorreproduction,betweenthesuperstructuralprocessandtherealityofthebase,butinwhichthereisanessentialhomologyorcorrespondenceofstructures,whichcanbediscoveredbyanalysis.Thisisnotthesamenotionas‘mediation’,butitisthesamekindofamendmentinthattherelationshipbetweenthebaseandthesuperstructureisnotsupposedtobedirect,norsimplyoperationallysubjecttolagsandcomplicationsandindirectnesses,butthatofitsnatureitisnotdirectreproduction.Thesequalificationsandamendmentsareimportant.Butitseemstomethatwhathasnotbeenlookedatwithequalcare,isthereceivednotionofthebase.AndindeedIwouldarguethatthebaseisthemoreimportantconcepttolookatifwearetounderstandtherealitiesofculturalprocess.Inmanyusesofthepropositionofbaseandsuperstructure,asamatterofverbalhabit,‘thebase’hascometobeconsideredvirtuallyasanobject,orinlesscrudecases,ithasbeenconsideredinessentiallyuniformandusuallystaticways.‘Thebase’istherealsocialexistenceofman.‘Thebase’istherealrelationsofproductioncorrespondingtoastageofthedevelopmentofmaterialproductiveforces.‘Thebase’isamodeofproductionataparticularstageofitsdevelopment.Wemakeandrepeatpropositionsofthiskind,buttheusageisthenverydifferentfromMarx’semphasisonproductiveactivities,inparticularstructuralrelations,constitutingthefoundationofallotheractivities.Forwhileaparticularstageofthedevelopmentofproductioncanbediscoveredandmadeprecisebyanalysis,itisneverinpracticeeitheruniformorstatic.ItisindeedoneofthecentralpropositionsofMarx’ssenseofhistorythattherearedeepcontradictionsintherelationshipsofproductionandintheconsequentsocialrelationships.Thereisthereforethecontinualpossibilityofthedynamicvariationoftheseforces.Moreover,whentheseforcesareconsidered,asMarxalwaysconsidersthem,asthespecificactivitiesandrelationshipsofrealmen,theymeansomethingverymuchmoreactive,morecomplicatedandmorecontradictorythanthedevelopedmetaphoricalnotionof‘thebase’couldpossiblyallowustorealize.Sowehavetosaythatwhenwetalkof‘thebase’,wearetalkingofaprocessandnotastate.Andwecannotascribetothatprocesscertainfixedpropertiesforsubsequentdeductiontothevariableprocessesofthesuperstructure.Mostpeoplewhohavewantedtomaketheordinarypropositionmorereasonablehaveconcentratedonrefiningthenotionofsuperstructure.ButIwouldsaythateachtermofthepropositionhastoberevaluedinaparticulardirection.Wehavetorevalue‘determination’towardsthesettingoflimitsandtheexertionofpressure,andawayfromapredicted,prefiguredandcontrolledcontent.Wehavetorevalue‘superstructure’towardsarelatedrangeofculturalpractices,andawayfromareflected,reproducedorspecificallydependentcontent.And,crucially,wehavetorevalue‘thebase’awayfromthenotionofafixedeconomicortechnologicalabstraction,andtowardsthespecificactivitiesofmeninrealsocialandeconomicrelationships,containingfundamentalcontradictionsandvariationsandthereforealwaysinastateofdynamicprocess.Itisworthobservingonefurtherimplicationbehindthecustomarydefinitions.‘Thebase’hascometoinclude,especiallyincertain20th-centurydevelopments,astrongandlimitingsenseofbasicindustry.Theemphasisonheavyindustry,even,hasplayedacertainculturalrole.Andthisraisesamoregeneralproblem,forwefindourselvesforcedtolookagainattheordinarynotionof‘productiveforces’.Clearlywhatweareexamininginthebaseisprimaryproductiveforces.Yetsomeverycrucialdistinctionshavetobemadehere.ItistruethatinhisanalysisofcapitalistproductionMarxconsidered‘productivework’inaveryparticularandspecializedsensecorrespondingtothatmodeofproduction.ThereisadifficultpassageintheGrundrisseinwhichhearguesthatwhilethemanwhomakesapianoisaproductiveworker,thereisarealquestionwhetherthemanwhodistributesthepianoisalsoaproductiveworker;butheprobablyis,sincehecontributestotherealizationofsurplusvalue.Yetwhenitcomestothemanwhoplaysthepiano,whethertohimselfortoothers,thereisnoquestion:heisnotaproductiveworkeratall.Sopiano-makerisbase,butpianistsuperstructure.Asawayofconsideringculturalactivity,andincidentallytheeconomicsofmodernculturalactivity,thisisveryclearlyadead-end.ButforanytheoreticalclarificationitiscrucialtorecognizethatMarxwasthereengagedinananalysisofaparticularkindofproduction,thatiscapitalistcommodityproduction.Withinhisanalysisofthatmode,hehadtogivetothenotionof‘productivelabour’and‘productiveforces’aspecializedsenseofprimaryworkonmaterialsinaformwhichproducedcommodities.Butthishasnarrowedremarkably,andinaculturalcontextverydamagingly,fromhismorecentralnotionofproductiveforces,inwhich,togivejustbriefreminders,themostimportantthingaworkereverproducesishimself,himselfinthefactofthatkindoflabour,orthebroaderhistoricalemphasisofmenproducingthemselves,themselvesandtheirhistory.Nowwhenwetalkofthebase,andofprimaryproductiveforces,itmattersverymuchwhetherwearereferring,asinonedegenerateformofthispropositionbecamehabitual,toprimaryproductionwithinthetermsofcapitalisteconomicrelationships,ortotheprimaryproductionofsocietyitself,andofmenthemselves,materialproductionandreproductionofreallife.Ifwehavethebroadsenseofproductiveforces,welookatthewholequestionofthebasedifferently,andwearethenlesstemptedtodismissassuperstructural,andinthatsenseasmerelysecondary,certainvitalproductivesocialforces,whichareinthebroadsense,fromthebeginning,basic.Email(required)Password(required)CreateanaccountForgotyourpassword?Subscribeforinstantaccesstoallarticlessince1960Buytheprintissue(withinstantonlineaccess)for£10Buythisarticlefor£3Shouldn'tIhaveaccesstothisarticleviamylibrary?BacktoissueI/82•Nov/Dec1973ShareFacebookTwitterEmailDownloadPDFBythisauthor‘TheFutureofMarxism’‘WhenWasModernism?’‘TheUsesofCulturalTheory’‘ProblemsoftheComingPeriod’‘Marxism,StructuralismandLiteraryAnalysis’‘ThePoliticsofNuclearDisarmament’‘BeyondActuallyExistingSocialism’‘ProblemsofMaterialism’‘NotesonBritishMarxismsince1945’‘LiteratureandSociology:InMemoryofLucienGoldmann’