A review on “The Marxist Tradition: Marxism and Culture”1

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) critiqued the “bourgeois capitalist
‘culture’”2 that resulted, without direct intention, to the Marxist cultural theory. This laid down
the basic understanding of infrastructure-superstructure relations in the society. Infrastructure is
the base, the “the means with which humans produce their material subsistence” 3 and
superstructure is the “social relations that goes with it.”4 Culture belongs to one of the three
different “forms of social consciousness”5 within the superstructure. Despite this relation, Marx
and Engels “[viewed] social life in its totality as a complex web of relations in which all factors
remain interconnected.”6
Georgii Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856-1918) is famous for his “dialectical
materialism,” a reformulation of the Marxist theory in levels: (1) forces of production, (2)
economic relations, (3) socio-political authorities, (4) psychology in the society, and (5)
ideologies.7 In fact in Soviet Union, this influenced the arts to what is called “socialist realism”
where “a work of art only has value when it accurately represents and not distort empirical
reality.”8 This had its tooth when enforced into legislation through Andrei Zhdanov (1896-1948),
the previous Secretary of the Communist Party. For them, only the socialist art is the authentic
art while the others, especially modern art, are “products of bourgeois society are but “orgies of
mysticism and superstition, a passion for pornography.””9 The Socialists used this for their
political ends: to eradicate the bourgeois for a classless society and to legitimize the Soviet state.
In Italy, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) posited hegemony as essential: “supremacy of a
social group manifests itself in two ways, as domination and as intellectual and moral
leadership.”10 He reformulated the superstructure of Marx’s model into levels (different from
Plekhanov’s): “the civil society that exercises hegemonic control and the political society or the
State (in the narrow sense) that exerts force and coercion.”11 A capitalist state uses its power to
those against it, particularly the working class. Conflict is neutralized and the dominated class
continue to work. Joseph Femia identifies four theoretical models of relationship derived from

1
. This is a section from the paper of Daniel Franklin Pilario entitled “The Adventures of ‘Culture’:
Exploring Cultural Theory in Three Traditions.” Class reading. Henceforth, this reading will be identified as “The
Adventures of ‘Culture’.”
2
. “The Adventures of ‘Culture’”, 34.
3
. Ibid., 35.
4
. Ibid.
5
. Ibid. These three are economics, politics, and ideology. Culture belongs to the ideology.
6
. Dupre quoted “The Adventures of ‘Culture’”, 36.
7
. See “The Adventures of ‘Culture’”, 37.
8
. “The Adventures of ‘Culture’”, 38.
9
. Ibid.
10
. Gramsci quoted “The Adventures of ‘Culture’”, 39.
11
. “The Adventures of ‘Culture’”, 40.
Gramsci’s understanding: (1) idealist view, (2) common sense view, (3) classical Marxism, and
(4) the base determining the possible forms of consciousness.12
The above historical account showed culture in the materialist tradition, that culture is a
derivation of the socio-historical changes in the society. In the materialist or Marxist tradition,
culture belonged to a form of social consciousness, then became a means for Socialists to further
their cause, and finally culture was repackaged back to the superstructure model. I certainly
agree with the paper’s argument that (in Raymond William’s later work) culture, in general, is
not a derivation but an element always present in the constitution of any social order. 13 Culture,
as historically sketched by the whole paper, was not a by-product of any historical place and
time, but one that signified or represented what the particular historical place and time spoke
about. Culture is seen in its purpose and not for the reasons how it came to be. Filippio Menozzi
affirms this direction in his paper “Reading Hegel after Marx: Lukács and the Question of
Teleology”14 where he mentions “teleological positing” to opening historical processes.15
The same line of thought by Marie Moran where she argues that culture is a “causal force
in its own right, and not merely derivative of or produced by other (especially economic)
relations and structures.”16 What is unique to Moran is her argument that culture is not simply a
“causal force in its own right” but is constituted by particular practices and processes, borrowing
the idea of Pierre Bourdieu. Moran’s describes culture as “a heuristic term for the
institutionalization and habituation of practices and ideas of a cultural character.” By this
understanding, culture truly becomes an adventure: one discovers and rediscovers new meanings
as one engages in culture.
-Eris Zeus C. Boquiron

12
. See “The Adventures of ‘Culture’”, 43.
13
. See Ibid., 46.
14
. Filippo Menozzi, “Reading Hegel after Marx: Lukács and the Question of Teleology,” International
Critical Thought 12, no. 1 (2022): 98-115, https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2022.2035792.
15
. Ibid., 113.
16
. Marie Moran, “Rethinking “culture”: A cultural-materialist account of social space,” Cogent Arts &
Humanities 1, no. 1 (2014): 2, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2014.992590.