NTRODUCTION To be fully understood, the Marxist approach to popular culture has to be situated within Marxism’s wider concerns. Marxism is always more than a form of cultural analysis; it is a body of political theory with the purpose of changing the world. This does not mean that other approaches to popular culture are apolitical. On the contrary, Marxism insists, as Fredric Jameson (1981) puts it, that ‘the political perspective . . . [is] the abso- lute horizon of all reading and all interpretation’ (p. 17). If the insistence on politics is one defining feature of the Marxist approach to popular culture, another is the insis- tence that the texts and practices of culture must be analysed and understood in their historical conditions of production (and in some versions, the changing conditions of their consumption and reception). What makes the Marxist approach different from other ‘historical’ approaches to popular culture is the Marxist conception of history. ‘The clearest statement of this conception is contained in the Preface and Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Reading 9). Marx argues that each significant ‘stage’ in history is constructed around a particular ‘mode of production’. Each mode of production brings into being different ways to produce the necessaries of life, but also produces different social relationships between the different classes, and different social institutions (including cultural ones). Fundamental to this analysis is the claim that the way in which a society produces its means of existence (its particular mode of production) ultimately determines the political, social and cultural shape of the society and its possible future development. After Marx’s death, Frederick Engels, his friend and collaborator, found himself, in a series of letters, having to explain many of the subtleties of Marxism to younger Marxists, who, in their revolutionary enthusi- asm, threatened to reduce it to a simple form of economic determinism. Reading 10 is an edited version of perhaps the most famous of these letters. In The German Ideology (Reading 8), Marx and Engels claim that the dominant class, on the basis of its control of the means of production, is virtually guaranteed to have control over the means of intellectual production. This, however, does not mean that the ideas of the dominant class will simply be imposed on subordinate classes. As Marx and Engels explain, a dominant class is ‘compelled . . . to represent its interests as the common interest of all the members of society . . . to give its ideas the form of uni- versality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones’. The uncer- tainty of this project makes ideological struggle almost inevitable. As Marx points out (Reading 9), it is in the ‘ideological forms’ (legal, political, cultural, etc.) that men and women ‘become conscious of . . . conflict and fight it out’.66 Part Three: Marxism Using the analytical tools of ‘classical’ Marxism (the Marxism of Marx and Engels), how should we approach popular culture? First, in order to understand and explain a text or practice, we must locate it in its moment of production, analysing the his- torical conditions that produced it. ‘This does not mean that we ‘reduce’ the text or practice to the economic conditions of its existence. For example, an analysis of the development of stage melodrama in the nineteenth century would have to pay atten- tion to more than the economic conditions of its existence. Nevertheless, an account that failed to address the historical conditions that produced, shaped and sustained the new audience for theatre would not be a full analysis of stage melodrama. An approach informed by ‘classical’ Marxism would insist that ultimately, however indirectly, there is, nevertheless, a real and fundamental relationship between the emergence of stage melodrama and changes that had taken place in the capitalist mode of production. ‘The Frankfurt School’s work on popular culture is mainly associated with the writ- ings of Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, ‘Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse, The term ‘culture industry’ was coined by Adorno and Horkheimer (1979) to describe the processes and products of mass culture. Mass culture, they claim, is uniform, predictable, and to the trained ear or eye, transparent. Unfortunately, for most people it is culture. The culture industry produces culture which the ‘masses’ consume unthinkingly and are thus confirmed as unthinking. It is a culture that produces satisfaction in the here and now, depoliticizing the working class, limiting its horizon to political and economic goals that can be achieved within the oppressive and exploitative framework of capitalist society. The culture industry manipulates and indoctrinates. ‘Authentic’ culture is different, a utopian space keeping alive the desire for a better world beyond the confines of the present. It embodies both a critique of today and the promise of tomorrow. But even ‘authentic’ culture is threatened by the culture industry, as it draws it more and more into the realm of production for profit. ‘Adorno’s essay ‘On Popular Music’ (Reading 11) is a representative example of the Frankfurt School approach to popular culture. In this essay, Adorno makes three specific claims about popular music: first, that popular music is standardized (‘pseudo- individualisation’ is used by the music industry to suggest otherwise); second, that it promotes passive consumption; and third, that popular music operates as ‘social cement’. Even when we acknowledge that the essay was published in 1941, and there- fore cannot be criticized for failing to take into account the complexities of recent popular music and popular music culture (his approach does not even allow the sus- picion of the possibility of change), itis still not easy to accept Adorno’s position. Does ‘pseudo-individualisation’ really explain differences between popular songs? Was the consumption of popular music ever as passive as Adorno claims? It is certainly difficult to maintain this position with regard to contemporary popular music. It has been estimated that about 80 per cent of recordings released actually lose money. This does not sound like the operations of an all-powerful culture industry; more like an industry trying desperately to sell music to a critical and discriminating public. Fin- ally, does popular music operate as social cement? Certainly, subcultural use of music (and it could be argued that all music consumption is, in effect, subcultural) suggests otherwise.Using the analytical tools of ‘classical’ Marxism (the Marxism of Marx and Engels), how should we approach popular culture? First, in order to understand and explain a text or practice, we must locate it in its moment of production, analysing the his- torical conditions that produced it. This does not mean that we ‘reduce’ the text or practice to the economic conditions of its existence. For example, an analysis of the development of stage melodrama in the nineteenth century would have to pay atten- tion to more than the economic conditions of its existence. Nevertheless, an account that failed to address the historical conditions that produced, shaped and sustained the new audience for theatre would not be a full analysis of stage melodrama. An approach informed by ‘classical’ Marxism would insist that ultimately, however indirectly, there is, nevertheless, a real and fundamental relationship between the emergence of stage melodrama and changes that had taken place in the capitalist mode of production. The Frankfurt School’s work on popular culture is mainly associated with the writ- ings of Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. The term ‘culture industry’ was coined by Adorno and Horkheimer (1979) to describe the processes and products of mass culture. Mass culture, they claim, is uniform, predictable, and to the trained ear or eye, transparent. Unfortunately, for most people it is culture. The culture industry produces culture which the ‘masses’ consume unthinkingly and are thus confirmed as unthinking. It is a culture that produces satisfaction in the here and now, depoliticizing the working class, limiting its horizon to political and economic goals that can be achieved within the oppressive and exploitative framework of capitalist society. ‘The culture industry manipulates and indoctrinates. ‘Authentic’ culture is different, a utopian space keeping alive the desire for a better world beyond the confines of the present. It embodies both a critique of today and the promise of tomorrow. But even ‘authentic’ culture is threatened by the culture industry, as it draws it more and more into the realm of production for profit. Adorno’s essay ‘On Popular Music’ (Reading 11) is a representative example of the Frankfurt School approach to popular culture. In this essay, Adorno makes three specific claims about popular music: first, that popular music is standardized (‘pseudo- individualisation’ is used by the music industry to suggest otherwise); second, that it promotes passive consumption; and third, that popular music operates as ‘social cement’, Even when we acknowledge that the essay was published in 1941, and there- fore cannot be criticized for failing to take into account the complexities of recent popular music and popular music culture (his approach does not even allow the sus- picion of the possibility of change), it is still not easy to accept Adorno’s position. Does «pseudo-individualisation’ really explain differences between popular songs? Was the consumption of popular music ever as passive as Adorno claims? It is certainly difficult to maintain this position with regard to contemporary popular music. It has been estimated that about 80 per cent of recordings released actually lose money. This does not sound like the operations of an all-powerful culture industry; more like an industry trying desperately to sell music to a critical and discriminating public. Fin- ally, does popular music operate as social cement? Certainly, subcultural use of music (and it could be argued that all music consumption is, in effect, subcultural) suggests otherwise.