Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hello and welcome to the second part of our discussion on Marxism. You will recall that
we dealt with some of the important points of Marxism as a Cultural Theory in our last
lecture, which was lecture 8, in the series of lectures on Cultural Studies. As we know,
these lectures have been recorded under the National Programme on Technology Enhanced
Learning. These courses are basically for the students of Engineering and Technology.
We are trying to bring some areas from the Humanities and Social Sciences.
We also hope, that some of these lectures that we are delivering under this program,
would be helpful for students, who are from the Humanities and Social Sciences, to at
least help them recapitulate some of the elementary and basic knowledge, that we would remember,
even as we move on to higher studies.
Once again, welcome to this lecture on Marxism. Before that, let us do a quick recap and this
is what we did last time. In the last lecture, we looked at the scoop of thought in the history
of ideas known as historical materialism. We said that Marxism has a cultural theory
that studies this structure and change of societies. The questions that we can ask here
are for instance, how are societies organized and structured? How do societies develop and
change? We look at the structure of society of culture, as well as how these change and
the reasons why these change.
We looked at the reigning school of thought during Marxist time and we said that idealism
was the best representative during those times. The philosopher Hegel argued that actions
are result of abstract ideas.
Ideas were seen independent of the material world.
The world itself was seen as a reflection of ideas or the absolute spirit, as Hegel
said.
We looked at the law of dialectics as the law behind the movement or the change in history.
We saw that dialectics is defined as a development that repeats historical stages, but repeats
them in a higher level. It results in a development that is not smooth, but a development by leaps,
catastrophes and revolutions.
We also saw the three words - thesis, antithesis and synthesis. These are the three levels
of movement, until we reach a synthesis. I also said that synthesis is the thesis for
the next movement.
In contrast to Hegelian idealism, we found that nature or matter is not ideas; nature
and or matter is held primarily. Instead of dialectical idealism, we found the Marx and
Engels talked about dialectical materialism. So, the dialectical path remains, but where
it comes from and when it happens, has changed from ideals to matter.
Hegelian dialectics plus materialism gives rise to dialectical materialism.
Next, we saw something, which forms the basis of Marxist theory and what was it? It goes
like this that socio-cultural change, remember, socio-cultural change occurs when the forces
of production come in conflict with the relation of production social forces of production.
For example, technology and the relations of production, the social organization happens
in a particular way or mode of production.
We also looked at two very important quotations from Marx, which involves the fact that human
beings enter into different relations of production, which are independent of their will or desire.
These relations of productions correspond to a definite state of development of the
material forces. We looked at two important concepts, which I will talk about more today.
They are the concepts of base and superstructure.
We also looked at this quotation from Marx, he says that we make our own history, but
we cannot make it the way we like it or the way we wish it to be, in the sense that men
make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it
under circumstances chosen by themselves, but these circumstances are ones that are
transmitted from the past. So, we are not free and we can never be free from past in
the Marxist framework. It weighs like a nightmare, in Marxist words, on the brain of the living.
We also looked at two very seminal pronouncements in Marxism and it is this that the modes of
production. Recall, what are the mode of productions? Let me read this, the mode of productions
determines the general character of the social, political and intellectual processes of life;
in the sense, that you may think that the ideas that you hold are yours.
In Marxist cultural framework, we would argue in the following way - it is the mode of production
that is the material mode of production. The organization determines the political, social
and intellectual process of life. In this, Marx is not saying that it is deterministic
or it is determined or it is guided by or it corresponds to, but it would be a vulgar
Marxism, which Marx never meant to say and that it is completely deterministic.
It is not the consciousness of men, which determines their existence. It is on the contrary,
and their social existence, which determines their consciousness, our awareness of not
just objects or things, but our awareness of social processes, the ideas that we hold,
the values that we hold - all these are determined by our social existences and it is not the
other way around. According to me, this is one of the most important seminal ideas in
Marxism, as far as our mega question is concerned. What was our mega question? Why do we live
the kind of lives that we live? The answer would be from Marxist cultural theory, that
our social existence determines the kind of life that we live and that comes from the
particular mode of production existing in that time. So, we are in a way, tied to history
and tied to our social circumstances.
This is what you will find in the communist manifesto by Marx and Friedrich Engels, in
the beginning of the communist manifesto - the history of all hitherto existing society is
the history of class struggles. The most important word here is class; it is a very seminal concept
in Marxist theory. Marx divided classes in two binaries of those who owned the means of production and those who worked.
For instance, we have the master and the slave. These are the two classes in a mode of production
that was ancient slavery. So, ancient slavery would determine the social existences and
the consciousness of people. Please look at this slide here; during feudalism,
you have the overlord and the serf. Just before that, you have the master and
the slave in the situation of ancient slavery; and in feudalism, we have the overlord and
the serf. In a capitalist system, you have the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat or the capitalist and the labourer.
In a situation of imperialism, you have the coloniser and the colonised.
Let us go back to the quotation - the history of all hitherto existing society may be read
as a history of class struggles. Now, these are the classes that are pitted against one
another, based on who owns the means of production. The relationship between social classes - the
relationship between these classes is not equal; it is unequal. Why is it unequal? Because
very few formed the first part of the binary opposition and they own the means of production.
So, when they own the means of production, then by extension, you could say they are
determiners of our social existence and the consciousness that we carry.
Their relationship is also exploitative. Why is it exploitative? Because the profit that
is accrued in any mode of production has these binaries of ones, who own the means of production,
and the ones, who do not will always be exploitative. The profit is collected by the class in the
first part of the binary opposition.
It is founded on a conflict of interest and the relationship is one. It will always be
a conflict of interest; the interest of the first part of the binary that is the exploiting
class. They would always want to earn profit and the interest. On the point of view of
the other class of the binary opposition that is exploited, would definitely be something
else and it would be in their own interest.
We come to another concept. You can see here on the screen, the concept of alienation.
Marx dealt on the concept of alienation, not just with reference to only be exploitive.
If we extend it, alienation is a concept. How do you understand alienation? Alienation
is to be separated from something and it comes from the word alien. As we know, alienated
is to be separated from something. Now, let us see how it is articulated. First, man is
a creative worker. We are not just mechanistic beings, but we are creative workers.
With the emergence of private property, man is alienated from the following... As we learnt
a while ago, what is the motive behind having a system, in which only few only few people
earn or rather own the means of production? Obviously, it is private property; the accumulation
of private property and the accumulation of surplus, which is not shared with the other
half of the binary opposition. So, with the emergence of private property, man is alienated
from the following.
In this case, we first consider only the labourer. A labourer is alienated or he is separated
from the product of his. The labourer contributes in the production process and the labour works,
which is according to Marx, a power; the labour is a power. We have the concept of labour
power and the product of a labourer's work is something that he or she is not entitled
to. In the first place, the labourer is alienated or separated from the product that has come
up, owing to his or her labour.
Second, the very act of producing man is separate or separated or alienated from the very act
of producing, when you consider assembly line production, for instance the factory production.
What do we see? We see that in many cases, it is not a creative act and one is almost
like a cog in a wheel or call it a cog in a machine, where you are doing work. It is
repetitive, that is, monotonous and boring, that it does not include a lot of creativity.
So, the very act of producing in a production process may be something that the labourer
is alienated from.
Third, the worker is alienated or separated from himself as a producer. In the whole production
process, he is separated or alienated from the very fact that he or she is a producer.
Finally, a labourer is alienated or separated from other producers, and from people, who
are his peers or people who work with him in the production process are separated. We
quickly saw again that man is a creative worker, who is separated from the product and he is
alienated in four different ways: a - from the product of his labour, b - from the act
of producing, c - from himself as a producer, d - from the other producers in the production
process. Now, that is why, the fact that the system is exploitative, and wherever there
is binary, the system is exploitative.
The theory of communism is summed up in one sentence: abolish all private property. This
is something that it is very difficult for some of you to imagine a way of life, in which
there is no private property, but Marx and Engels and other Marxists, argue that it is
possible to have that sort of life. It is like a commune, when you do not own private
property and let us see more about this later.
Coming back to alienation, which is a result of private property. Alienation degrades not
just the workers; alienation degrades both the bourgeoisie, that is the capitalist class,
and the proletariat, that is the labouring class. So, it is something that happens to
both classes; whereas in the first go, you may feel that it is only the labourer, who
is alienated in four different ways, but it is not so.
Now, I am quoting from Marx - the propertied class and the class of the proletariat present
the same human self-estrangement. The self-estrangement is a synonym for alienation. So, both, the
class that owns the property and the class of the proletariat or the labourer are alienated,
but the former class that is the propertied class or the class which owns the means of
production. The former class feels that ease and strengthened
in this self-estrangement, so, they have alienated. The situation is such that they feel strengthened
by this self-estrangement or alienation. It recognizes estrangement as its own power for
them; it is being alienated from the proletariat and alienated in a couple of other ways. As
we saw, it is something that is to be celebrated or it is something that is for their own convenience.
It is something that gives them power and even though both classes are alienated; there
is a difference in how to perceive that alienation.
Look at this slide here please - the class of the proletariat, sees in its own powerlessness
and the reality of an inhuman existence. Alienation is the source of power for the capitalist
class. It is considered as something desirable in the case of the proletariat or the labourer,
that this class sees in such alienation of its own powerlessness and what they perceive
is an inhuman existence.
Within this antithesis, the private property - owner is therefore the conservative side;
you call them the conservatives. Why? Simply, look at the word conservative; they want to
conserve, they want to preserve how things are, they want to preserve the relations of
production, they want to preserve the mode of production that is going on, because the
alienation happens. It only strengthens them and it is a source of power.
From the former, arises the action of preserving the antithesis, but in the case of the latter
that is in the case of the proletariat or the labourer, we have the action of annihilating
it. Therefore, they are the progressive side. Now, I am sure you must have heard of these
two terms, which is, the conservatives versus the progressive. Why are the proletariats
known as the progressive and the capitalist known as the conservatives? As I said earlier,
in the first instance, they want to conserve things, as they are the organization and the
relations of production. On the other hand, the other class wants to
progress; that is, they want to break these and they want to go ahead to a better system
of organization. So, I hope you have understood that the system of alienation, which many
people say that only the labour is alienated, but both classes of the exploiter and the
exploited within this cultural theory framework are actually estranged or alienated.
In this whole concept, I have been using the word exploitation. How is this maintained?
For instance, Marxist theorists would argue that all classes, for that matter anyone who
exploits somebody else or some other class in a system, gives a moral justification that
this exploitation is being done towards a certain moral rationale. So, there is always
a moral justification or class rule. In that they would say something like this and if
you look at this slide here, our system is the highest. It is the most natural form of
social development. We have reached the stage, which is the best.
So, every era or every mode of production in ancient slavery also would have said, that
ours is the best form of social development. Do you follow capitalism? It would say that
ours is the highest and most importantly, it is the most natural form. For instance,
let us go back to a time, when there was absolute monarchy. In absolute monarchy, what was the
justification of the rule of the monarch or the king? The justification would be something
like this - that the king rules, because the rule of the king is the most natural form.
Now, the fact that it is natural, what is the idea behind it? The idea behind it would
be something like the divine of kings. Kings have a divine rights and kings have been given
them by God to rule. So, these are ways in which the exploitation of one class over another
is thought to be justified and that is morally the best form that was ever there.
I would like to quote this beautiful passage from Marx, political economy regards the proletarian...
like a horse, he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during
the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors,
religion, statistical tables, politics and the beadle. So, the worker is like a horse
and you do not have to give him or her a lot just for him or her. The moral justification
would be this, so he is more like an animal. He will work; feed him or give him wages that
are just enough for him to sustain himself and his family.
In Marxist works, when you read Das kapital for instance, one is struck by the images
that he uses and the metaphors he uses. There are so many resonances from literary work
and for instance, many have said that Das kapital is like poetry; it is not just a dry
piece of work and there are so many illusions. As Marx was so widely read; in many chapters,
you find passages that are so poetic.
Just a while ago, we were talking about social existence, how social existence determines
our consciousness. We looked at a two concept, one is the foundation of society and the other
is the social consciousness. We are going to work out a bit more, we are going to give
them particular names and these names are these terms that are base and superstructure.
There are two things here, let us go one by one. The first is the base; the base is what
is the infrastructure or the economic base of society. The economic base of society comprises
broadly of two things. You have an economic arrangement, I work and I get paid for my
work and somebody pays me. So, in that you have a certain kind of forces of production
and we call the term as forces of production and the relations of production. What else
you recall? Society changes, when these two come in conflict.
In a structure, where there is a foundation or there is a base, it comprises two things
- the forces of production and the relations of production. For instance, in a mode of
production or in a way of production that is feudal for instance. Land becomes the most
important force of production. The relations of production are concerned and it is marked
by the two binaries- the lord or the owner of the land and the tenant or the serf, who
works on that over the base. This is really an architectural metaphor, which is used over
the base and there arises something called the superstructure.
Now, what is this superstructure? The superstructure that arises on the base comprises the political
and ideological relationships. In the first case, we have the economic relationships as
shown by the forces of production and the corresponding relations of productions.
In the second case, we have the political or ideological relationships that is the argument
is the way, in which you find the base and the situation, in which you find the base
or the whatever characterizes the base is going to determine. I would hasten to say
not in a fully deterministic way, but in a mechanical deterministic way that this absolutely
causes it. It is a little more complex than that and it will give rise to certain political
institutions, certain ideological relationships, look at the next slide.
Down here, we have the base, which as I said comprises relations of production and the
forces of productions. This base or the situation or the circumstances or the nature of the
base will give rise to a certain superstructure. Now, what have we here in the superstructure?
In the superstructure, we have the legal systems, we have a family, we have education, religion
and finally, consciousness. So, the legal systems, family, education, religion are what?
These are political ideological institutions and they give rise to certain relationships.
Now, the legal system, family, education and religion are not there in any given point
of time in history just like that and just on their own.
Why do we have certain legal system? Why does the legal system itself develop or change?
Why the amendments are made? Why there are changes in educational policy? For instance,
why does the family change? For instance, we have the joint family, before that we had
different kinds of family. Today, we have the nuclear family, so that is the family
system. For instance, in education, they are very
different from olden times. In old times, these are determined by the mode of production
that is there in the base. If it is a feudal system, then the laws would be only to what
is there in the base and only to that particular mode of production. Family, education, religion
and all these would be determined by the mode of production in the base. Finally, our consciousness
holds everything of what we think about the values that we have or awareness of things
or perceptions. They are also a part of the superstructure, this very consciousness, which
we think is our own ego, and for instance, it is our own subjectivity. We will see more
on subjectivity, later on in the next module. Our subjectivity that are included are actually
determined by the economic arrangement in the base.
This is very beautiful statement - the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas
of its ruling class. Let us look at this again, in every age, there will be some ideas, some
beliefs, some values some way of thinking, which are ruling or another word for it is
the dominant ideas. These ideas are held to stick through these ideas and they are held
to adhere to or subscribe by everybody. So, these are ideas that are reigning or ruling
in a particular age. Now, where do these ideas come from? You recall
in idealism that Hegel would say that these ideas are the reflection of ideas that are
emanating from the absolute sprit or ideas that are emanating from something that is
not related to the material world. Marxism or dialectical materialism or historical materialism
would say that our ideas come from how or material lives are arranged. These are called
dominant ideas; they are actually the ideas of the class that is in power during that
time. What does it mean to say? It means to say that the ideas that you and I hold.
If we are not critical being and if you do not think critically, we simply consume ideas.
We used to be careful because those ideas are serving the interest of somebody else,
who is interested in serving the interest of the class, which at the moment is in power.
This brings us to term... because we are talking about ideas here. This brings us to a term,
which I would again look at more deeply some other time, probably in the next module. However,
we can just have a quick preview of it. This term is ideology and how do we define ideology?
Ideology is defined as a set of ideas or it is defined as lenses and also as maps of meaning.
So, ideology is a set of ideas, values, approach to the world, approach to reality that you
and I hold. You have the set of belief and for instance,
look at this slide here. The set of beliefs about what the world says or rather I look
at the world through these lenses. So, for instance, a materialist in the sense, I believed
in Marxism. So, I have a set of beliefs, which makes we understand the world. Everything
in it is emanating from a certain economic base or if I am a very religious person, then
I own a different set of beliefs. My set of beliefs would be more likely idealist.
I would argue that I look at the world and look at all my activities from the point of
view of religion. I look at it, if something happens to me and I look at it as a punishment
for something I did, may be in my last life. I have not followed the rules of religion
of these scriptures and here is a god that has punished me. So, these are also maps.
If you look at this slide here, the third meaning here is the ideology refers to maps
of meaning. How you make meaning out of our lives, if conditioned by a set of beliefs?
Now, this set of beliefs are in turn conditioned by the base.
Let us again look back at that this; this is the architecture of the base and the superstructure.
So, my ideology would be the result of the relations of production and the forces of
production that is the mode of production that is going on. This determines all these
things, which arises my set of beliefs about the world.
Barker says that ideology is a part and parcel of Marxism. He says that cultural studies
are so influential; it has the concept of ideology within cultural studies that the
whole field was once dubbed as ideological studies. So, cultural studies was once called
by somebody or by some people as ideological studies - the study of ideology.
We now come to... because we are taking about ideology. We come to a very important figure
here and you must be aware of this person, the Italian, Marxist Antonio Gramsci. His
prison notebooks are among his most famous of his works. Now, with Gramsci, we come to
the idea of ideology. So, I am reading from Chris Barker as Chris Barker's cultural studies
theory and practice is one seminal text in this course, as far the entire course is concerned.
Every now and then, when I talk about internal modules, I may take up a particular text.
For instance, in evolutionary psychology or memetics, we had a discourse to a particular
text, but as a whole, if I were to pick a book that one can use in a cultural studies
course at this level is Barker's book; it would be a good choice. So, I am reading from
Barker. From Gramsci, ideology is grasped as ideas, meanings and practices which, while
they purport to be universal truths, are maps of meaning that support the power of particular
social classes. I should hasten to add here that there are
other books by Barker. When you look at concepts, you could do well to look at the sage handbook
of cultural studies, from which I think, I have taken this particular quotation. Well,
let us look at it again, for Gramsci, what is ideology? It is grasped as ideas, meanings
and practices, which they purport to be universal truths, are maps of meaning that support the
power of particular social classes. Even though the word ideology comes from the word idea
or ideas, Gramsci ideology is not just idea or the thought in your head; it is also the
practices. So, ideology is not separate and this is the point here; ideology is not separate
from the practical activities that is ideology is not just your thought.
It is the practical activities and they are also part of it. Here, ideology is not separate
from the practical activities of life, but provides people with rules of practical conduct
and moral behavior. You have a certain idea in your head and that is going to guide your
practical behavior, which is going to guide your practical conduct and your moral behavior.
Why you behave in a certain immoral way? Because you hold that you are the framework, in which
some things are morally good and some things are morally unsound. So, let us look at this
again. Ideology is understood as both lived experience and a body of systematic ideas
and that is the beauty of this extension here. As I said, this fleshing out ideology is both
lived experience and it is a body of systematic ideas, whose role is to organize and bind
together a block of diverse social elements.
Along with ideology, we come to another word, which is the concept of hegemony. Hegemony
is usually understood, when you read your history in your school. For instance, you
may have come across words like hegemonic rule; there is a hegemonic rule - he has hegemony
over a certain territory. Now, we extend that to hegemony rule over
the mind, as it is understood in hegemonic territorial rule. In this case, we say that
hegemony or a rule over our minds. Rule over our ideas is not always something that has
been forced into and it is not something that is coercive. So, look at this slide here please,
we have this concept of the first one, manufactured consent. The fact that you agreed to be in
the system, the fact that you agreed to be with the ideas, the fact that you agree as
to what is moral, immoral etc is your consent. The fact, your agreement is one that has been
manufactured, you may not be aware of it, but in ideology and hegemony studies, we say
that our consent to a certain convention is a one that has been manufactured.
Now, look at this second point here, manufactured by the processes of socialization of... Now,
what are processes of socialization? First is the family; your family trains you to be
a part of society. We are trained to be social beings; next you go to school and the education
system is another institution like a family. It is an institution, which further carries
out this process of socialization. Finally, you have the cultural institutions
like religion. Again, religion will tell you how to behave and what to hold as being moral
or immoral education. As I mentioned, the mass media is a very powerful source of manufacturing
this. If you consume soap operas or you have this television serials or the news. For instance,
if you simply consume it without critically questioning the representation in the media,
then you are being socialized. You have been socialized and your consent is manufactured,
yes I accept it as advertising. If you look at advertisement, advertising
is also one way of manufacturing your consent. How? It is often said that the desire for
an object is created in you, even before you begin to desire that object. If you do not
see something being advertised the way it is and the way it is shown as something as
that you have to possess. Just look at the lines that they use the slogans that are used,
you and we are being processed and we are being socialized to these processes. So, our
consent is not a one that is always forced and our consent is very cleverly manufactured.
Again with hegemony, this is leadership with; we mean the ones, who are in power, for instance,
the class that is in power. In Marxist terminology, hegemony is seen as leadership with the consent
of the led. We are led by leaders, but our consent is manufactured.
I will very quickly talk about another theorist; whose name is Louis Althusser and Althusser
divided this hegemony into two ways of doing it. I said one is the repressive state apparatuses
known popularly in Marx's studies as the RSAs - Repressive State Apparatuses. They are the
coercive measures and for instance, the police, the army, the legal system. These are coercive,
in the sense that if you do not follow them, they are apparatuses of the state of the government,
which force you. You will be booked, if you are coerced in the following and Althusser
calls them repressive.
The second way is ideological state apparatuses. These ideological state apparatuses or the
ISAs are really not coercive, but they are apparatuses. They are not referred as the
hard policing that you saw in the first case.
We will look at the first case again, which is the repressive state apparatuses that are
coercive.
The other kind is the ideological montetuit ideas, which we call as soft policing. The
ideological state apparatuses is getting a consent, not by coercive measures, but getting
your consent through soft policing or through ideological practices. For instance, we looked
at mass media, we looked at education and these are not coercive. You are not put to
jail, if you are not going for education. You are not put to jail, if you do not watch
the television or if you speak out against the representation of woman in television,
but they are apparatuses. If you are not aware and if you are not conscious about it, they
are ingrained into you through this kind of soft policing. So, Louis Althusser is the
theorist that I happen to mention here.
Let us look at this slide, the cultural forms or products in various media. It has various
kinds of media. What are the cultural forms or product? They are waves or modes of representation.
Now, representation is another word, where I will devote a lecture or two in the next
module, when we go the key concepts. For now, it suffices to say that the various products
that we see in the media means not just the television or the radio or newspapers, it
also could mean literatures or a performance in a performance in art or paintings. These
are media, in the sense they are medium or a source to meet. There are ways or modes
of representation. These representations is held in Marxist cultural theory and these
representations are there to serve the dominant classes.
These involve institutionalized processes of production, distribution and consumption
of these cultural products. These cultural products, which are given to us through various
media are the production, distribution and consumption. It is not that they just happen,
the production, distribution and consumption of these cultural products are channelized
by the dominant classes. For instance, censorship is a case to point here, whether you allow
to consume a certain kind of art product, how it is distributed? What are the rules
in its production in the first place? Look at the slide once again; production,
distribution and consumption of any cultural artifact or product come to us via certain
institutionalized processes. These institutionalized processes are part of the base or the superstructure.
In cultural studies; in Marxist cultural studies, the whole concept of meaning formation is
seen and articulated as a tussle for meaning, where dominant groups give off ideologies
or world views in a bid to maintain the status quo and for standardization. Everybody believes
in it and consumes the ideological and cultural products.
Class and culture are intertwined as bourgeois cultural forms and proletarian culture. It
is not that proletarians do not have their cultural form, but it is question of taste.
What is in good taste and what is in bad taste? What is high culture and what is low culture?
It is determined by concerned class.
Now, the state of communism is seen as by Marx as a state, in which there will be a
situation in which each person would contribute to society, according to his or her own ability
and each would be given what he or she needs.
I would like to quickly end with quotation, before I go on to one or two questions. To
me, it is something that is so beautifully put. Again, let us find in other cases, the
way of life in communism as envisaged by Karl Marx. In communist society, where nobody has
one exclusive sphere of activity, but each can become accomplished in any branch, if
he wishes. Society regulates the general production and
thus, makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow that is to hunt
and fish in the morning; in the afternoon, rear cattle and in the evening, you criticize,
as I have a mind without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
Now, quickly let us go to the discussion of what is base and superstructure. What are
base and superstructure? Base is the infrastructure or the economic base of a society.
Superstructure arises over a political and ideological relationship.
What is man alienated from in circumstances, where private property is present? He is alienated
in the following way: from his labour, from the act of producing, from himself as a producer
and from other producers. What is ideology? Ideology may be defined
as a set of beliefs or lenses or maps of meaning. What is hegemony?
Hegemony is leadership with the consent of the led. There are two types as mentioned
by Louis Althusser. These are the repressive state apparatuses that are coercive.
Next is the ideological state apparatus that are not coercive, but they are soft policing
and they are policing nonetheless. Explain false consciousness.
What is to have false consciousness? False consciousness are institutional processes,
which lead to the misrecognition of our true nature and our social realities. For instance,
the bourgeoisie and proletarian has a false consciousness, if they do not realize that
they are a class for itself. What according to Marx should philosophy do?
According to Marx, the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the
point however, is to change it. Finally, name two goals of communism.
The two goals of communism may be mentioned like this to transform both, the world and
man's consciousness of the world. To achieve a state of communism, what was
it?
As we saw a while ago, in which a state will give or contribute to society, according to
his or her own ability and each will get from society, what each of us need. We have come
to the end of this lecture and well, it is obvious that two lectures are not simply enough
to bring Marxist cultural theory to you. My hope is that this is just a beginning and
it would lead you to the important works by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and the other
Marxist critics, who followed it. You will look at this as a theory that is it is not
just a theory to analyze our cultural lives. As Marx said, it is a theory and so, it is
a theory, which urges us to go in for change, urges us to interpret the world and at the
same time, to act in a way, in which we can make a system that is not exploitative. We
can construct a system that is fair to one and all. Thank you.