Base and superstructure -> idea that a fundamental base, such as means of production (technology?) determines superstructure such as social practices, classes, cultural expectations, morality even?
B&S is tricky though. When taken literally as direct impact/reflection/imitation and this trickiness has ben explained away by notions of time lag or complications, or a mediation/translation that gives base a real shaping impact on superstructure but only in ways revealed through analysis.
The Base and the Productive Forces
Base is a process, a system, not an input state.
But is base just primary production as Marx has it when analyzing capitalist commodity production? Or, as worker's "most important production is self," is base more braodly definable as society -- material production and repreoduction of real life?
Uses of Totality
Totality is proposed as a way of getting around base/superstructure primacy of a determining process and to highlight "variety of miscellaneous and contemporaneous practices," but can become vacuous of Marxist intent of analysing intention/cultural-values. Obscures superstructural elements of many societal institutions and makes resisting them impossible. (So why depend on vertical base superstructure rather than, say "the mangle of structure" haha)
Complexity of Hegemony
"In any society, in any particular period there is a central system of practices, meanings and values, which we can propoerly call dominant and effective" (413). History is written with a teleological hindsight ("selective tradition" he calls it) highlighting the narratives that convey central cultural values and
silencing non-hegemonic beliefs. Education (
as well as media, interactions, institutions -> sociology) transmits hegemonic beliefs. The social and cultural order creates a stable, buttressed hegemonically ordered sooperstructure.
How and when does crisis befall the hegemonies? Seems like hegemonic culture constantly has to rewrite itself as it coopts new elements. But Marx, I guess, would argue that the underlying system of production and thus base would remain unaffected in these rewritings so non-trivial destabilization still does not occur. How does non-trivial destabilization ever occur then? Overthrow means of production? Hard to imagine...
Residual and Emergent Cultures
Residual - can be left untouched, cultures that still find their base in a previous era/epoch (?) different from the base processes of current dominant culture. But it often overlaps in base with dominant culture and likely to be incorporated. Emergent - New, not yet incorporated
blah blah art and literature and alternative beliefs and class and consumption.
Critical Theory as Consumption
Art theory has tradition of busying itself with analysis of the component and interpretation/reception/consumption of work rather than the means of production, the artist, etc. Phu vs me at least sophomore year. A Marxist analysis suggests viewing art as practice, not just object. Clustering cultural works by modes that produced them, rather than object features can suggest new genres -- almost a gestalt reorganization that can bring to light different dynamics of hegemony and resistance and what else??
response:
Seems like this will obviously connect with Closed World in that base of cold war discourse (but really, a production base? a social relation base? a war between modes of production acted out through human self-interest? (geez, why did communism fail?)) had a mediated (how?) impact on technologies and worldviews dominant during the time.
