Marxist cultural analysis is a form ofcultural analysis andanti-capitalist cultural critique, which assumes the theory ofcultural hegemony and from this specifically targets those aspects of culture that are profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism.[1][2][3][4]
The original theory behind this form of analysis is commonly associated withGeorg Lukács,Antonio Gramsci, and theFrankfurt School. It represents an important current withinWestern Marxism, observing that societies maintain cohesion and stability by reproducing a dominant culture.[5] Marxist cultural analysis has commonly considered the industrialization, mass-production, and mechanical reproduction of culture by the "culture industry" as having an overall negative effect on society, an effect whichreifies the self-conception of the individual.[2][6]
The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has also been referred to as "cultural Marxism" and "Marxist cultural theory", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture.[7][8][9][10][11][12] However, since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to theCultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory popular among thefar right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis.[9]
The term "Marxism" encompasses multiple "overlapping and antagonistic traditions" inspired by the work of Karl Marx, and it does not have any authoritative definition.[13][14] The most influential texts for cultural studies are (arguably) the "Thesis on Feuerbach" and the 1859 Preface toA Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.[13] Major Marxist figures in cultural studies include members of theFrankfurt School, the Italian revolutionaryAntonio Gramsci, and the FrenchstructuralistLouis Althusser.[15]
Marxism views cooperative social relationships as also sites of power and struggle. It examines even apparently non-economic human relations as structured by economic relations—even though "relatively autonomous".[16][17] Cultural studies rejects the teleological dimension of some interpretations of Marx's thought (i.e., the inevitable overthrow of capitalism) to focus instead on matters ofideology andhegemony as they influence both politics and everyday life.[15][18]
TheInstitute for Social Research in interwarGermany, which moved to the US after the rise of Hitler, applied Marxist as well aspsychoanalytic concepts to the study of modern culture, in particularmass culture. The Frankfurt theorists, in particularTheodor Adorno andMax Horkheimer, proposed that existingsocial theory was unable to explain the turbulentpolitical factionalism andreactionary politics, such asNazism, of 20th-century liberal capitalist societies. Also critical ofMarxism–Leninism as a philosophically inflexible system of social organization, the School's critical-theory research sought alternative paths tosocial development.
What unites the disparate members of the School is a shared commitment to the project ofhuman emancipation, theoretically pursued by an attempted synthesis of theMarxist tradition,psychoanalysis, and empirical sociological research.[19][20][21][22]
The Frankfurt School analyzes the significance ofthe ruling understandings (thedominant ideology) generated in bourgeois society in order to show that the dominant ideology misrepresentshow human relations occur in thereal world and how capitalism justifies and legitimates the domination of people. According to Frankfurt School, the dominant ideology is a ruling-class narrative that provides an explanatory justification of the current power-structure of society. Nonetheless, the story told throughthe ruling understandings conceals as much as it reveals about society. The task of the Frankfurt School was sociological analysis and interpretation of the areas of social-relation that Marx did not discuss in the 19th century – especially thebase and superstructure aspects of a capitalist society.[23]
The essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", by Adorno's close associateWalter Benjamin is a key text of cultural theory.[24] Benjamin is optimistic about the potential of commodified works of art to introduce radical political views to theproletariat.[25] In contrast, Adorno and Horkheimer saw the rise of theculture industry as promoting homogeneity of thought and entrenching existing authorities.[25] For instance, Adorno (a trained classical pianist) polemicized againstpopular music because it had become part of the culture industry ofadvanced capitalist society and thefalse consciousness that contributes to social domination. He argued that radical art and music may preserve the truth by capturing the reality of human suffering. Hence, "What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man.... The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music".[26]
This view ofmodern art as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty because they have become ideological is characteristic of Adorno and of the school generally. In particular, Adorno criticizedjazz andpopular music, viewing them as part of the culture industry that contributes to the present sustainability of capitalism by rendering it "aesthetically pleasing" and "agreeable".Martin Jay has called the attack on jazz the least successful aspect of Adorno's work in America.[27]
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist philosopher, primarily writing in the lead up to and after theFirst World War. He attempted to break from theeconomic determinism ofclassical Marxism thought and so is considered aneo-Marxist.[28]
Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how cultural institutions function to maintain the status of the ruling class. In Gramsci's view, hegemony is maintained by ideology; that is, without need for violence, economic force, or coercion. Hegemonic culture propagates its own values and norms so that they become the "common sense" values of all and maintain thestatus quo. Gramsci asserts that hegemonic power is used to maintain consent to the capitalist order rather than coercive power using force to maintain order and that this cultural hegemony is produced and reproduced by the dominant class through the institutions that form the superstructure.[29]
Why did we take power earlier in Russia, we, the communists ? Because we had a weaker enemy - the bourgeoisie. In what way was it weak ? It was not as rich and cultured as theEnglishbourgeoisie, which has at its disposal huge funds, both of money and of culture, and also great experience in dealing with the masses and subjugating them politically.
InLiterature and Revolution, Trotsky examined aesthetic issues in relation to class and the Russian revolution. Soviet scholar Robert Bird considered his work as the "first systematic treatment of art by a Communist leader" and a catalyst for later, Marxist cultural and critical theories.[31] He had also defended intellectual autonomy in relation to the Russianliterary movements and scientific theories such asFreudian psychoanalytic theory along withEinstein'stheory of relativity during the succession period. However, these theories were increasingly marginalised during the Stalin era.[32]
In"Problems of Everyday Life", a contemporaneous book which further articulated his views on culture and science, Trotsky argued that cultural development would accentuate industrial and technical progress. He viewed both elements to be interrelated components as part of dialectical interaction in which he viewed the low level of Russiantechnique andexpertise to be a function of cultural backwardness. According to Trotsky, Western industrial techniques and products such as the radio should not be rejected due to their status as a product of a capitalist system but rather absorbed into the Soviet socialist framework to facilitate new forms of techniques and cultural production.[33] In this interpretation, thetransference of techniques brought new cultural changes in terms of rationalism,efficiency, exactitude andquality.[33]
Trotsky would later co-author the 1938Manifesto for an Independent Revolutionary Art with the endorsement of prominent artistsAndre Breton andDiego Rivera.[34] Trotsky's writings on literature such as his 1923 survey which advocated tolerance, limited censorship and respect for literary tradition had strong appeal to theNew York Intellectuals.[35]
Trotsky presented a critique of contemporary literary movements such asFuturism and emphasised a need of cultural autonomy for the development of a socialist culture. According to literary criticTerry Eagleton, Trotsky recognised "like Lenin on the need for a socialist culture to absorb the finest products of bourgeois art".[36] Trotsky himself viewed the proletarian culture as "temporary and transitional" which would provide the foundations for a culture above classes. He also argued that the pre-conditions for artistic creativity were economic well-being and emancipation from material constraints.[37]
Political scientist, Baruch Knei-Paz, characterisedhis view on the role of the party as transmitters of culture to the masses and raising the standards of education, as well as entry into the cultural sphere, but that the process of artistic creation in terms of language and presentation should be the domain of the practitioner. Knei-Paz also noted key distinctions between Trotsky's approach on cultural matters andStalin's policy in the 1930s.[37]
British Cultural Studies emerged in the 1960s and was housed at theCentre for Contemporary Cultural Studies founded byRichard Hoggart (a non-Marxist socialist) inBirmingham and later directed byStuart Hall (a Marxist). The Birmingham School developed later than the Frankfurt School and are seen as providing a parallel response.[4] Accordingly, British Cultural Studies focuses on later issues such asAmericanization,censorship,globalization andmulticulturalism. As well as Hoggart'sThe Uses of Literacy (1957),Raymond Williams'Culture and Society (1958) and Thompson'sThe Making of the English Working Class (1964) by theMarxist humanist historianE. P. Thompson form the foundational texts for the school, with Hall'sencoding/decoding model of communication and his writings on multiculture and race arriving later but carrying equal gravitas.[38][39] Later key figures in the school includedPaul Willis,Dick Hebdige,Angela McRobbie andPaul Gilroy.
The Birmingham School greatly valued and contributed to class consciousness within thestructure of British society.[40] Whereas the Frankfurt School extolled the values of high culture, the Birmingham School celebrated ordinary culture.[2][41][42]
Marxism has been an important influence upon cultural studies. Those associated with CCCS initially engaged deeply with thestructuralism ofLouis Althusser, and later in the 1970s turned decisively towardAntonio Gramsci. To understand the changing political circumstances ofclass,politics, andculture in the United Kingdom, scholars at the Birmingham School made considerable use of Gramsci's concept ofhegemony, which involves the formation of alliances between class factions, and struggles within the cultural realm of everyday common sense. Hegemony was always, for Gramsci, an interminable, unstable and contested process.[43]Scott Lash writes:
In the work of Hall, Hebdige and McRobbie, popular culture came to the fore... What Gramsci gave to this was the importance of consent and culture. If the fundamental Marxists saw the power in terms of class-versus-class, then Gramsci gave to us a question ofclass alliance. The rise of cultural studies itself was based on the decline of the prominence of fundamental class-versus-class politics.[44]
Another key concept developed by Hall and his colleagues, in their book,Policing the Crisis (1977), wasStanley Cohen's idea ofmoral panic, a way of exploring how the media of the dominant class createsfolk devils in the popular imagination.
Cultural studies has also embraced the examination of race, gender, and other aspects of identity, as is illustrated, for example, by a number of key books published collectively under the name of CCCS in the late 1970s and early 1980s, includingWomen Take Issue: Aspects of Women's Subordination (1978), andThe Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain (1982).
Contemporary Marxist philosophers have challengedpostmodernism andidentity politics, arguing that addressing material inequalities should remain at the center of left-wing political discourse.[45][46]Jürgen Habermas, an academic philosopher associated with theFrankfurt School, and a member of its second generation, is a critic of the theories of postmodernism, having presented cases against their style and structure in his work "The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity", in which he outlays the importance ofcommunicative rationality and action.[47] He also makes the case that by being founded on and from within modernity, postmodernism has internal contradictions which make it unsustainable as an argument.[48]
Frankfurt School Associate,Nancy Fraser, has made critiques of modern identity politics and feminism in herNew Left Review article "Rethinking Recognition",[46] as well as in her collection of essays "Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis" (1985–2010).[49]
While the term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense, to discuss the application of Marxist ideas in the cultural field,[12][50][51] the variant term "Cultural Marxism" generally refers to an antisemiticconspiracy theory.[52][53][54][55] Parts of the conspiracy theory make reference to actual thinkers and ideas selected from the Western Marxist tradition,[56][57][58] but they severely misrepresent the subject.[58][59] Conspiracy theorists exaggerate the actual influence of Marxist intellectuals,[60] for example, claiming that Marxist scholars aimed to infiltrate governments, perform mind-control over populations,[56][57][58][61] and destroy Western civilization.[52] Since there is no specific movement corresponding to the label, Joan Braune has argued it is not correct to use the term "Cultural Marxism" at all.[60]
The term does appear very occasionally in Marxist literature, but there is no pattern of using it to point specifically to the Frankfurt School
Cultural Marxism, and Critical Theory more generally with which it has a close signification, have both a direct link with the Frankfurt School and its Marxian theorists. Initially called the "Institute for Social Research" during the 1930s, and taking the label the "Frankfurt School" by the 1950s, the designation meant as much an academic environment as a geographical location. As Christian Bouchindhomme puts it in its entry devoted to "Critical Theory" in Raynaud and Rials' Dictionnaire de philosophie politique, the Frankfurt School has been more a label than a school, even if it referred to a real academic environment:
Marxist cultural analysis, as it emerged in post-war Western and Eastern Europe, was a reaction to the tendency within Soviet-style Marxism to treat culture as a mere secondary epiphenomenon of economic relations, of classes and modes of production. Western European Marxists led the way. The humanist Marxism of the New Left, which first emerged in the late 1950s, increasingly engaged with anthropological conceptions of culture that emphasized human agency: language, communication, experience, and consciousness. By the 1960s and 1970s Western cultural Marxism was engaged in a dialogue with structuralism, post-structuralism and semiotics.
Some of the most suggestive criticisms of the path taken by many followers of the Birmingham School (not of its founders) emphasize that they have let themselves be caught out by a certain textual condition, where the text seems to acquire a self-contained condition, overlooking the connection with social contexts. Therefore, Fredric Jameson emphasizes the need to recover the critical theory of culture that comes from Marx, Freud, the School of Frankfurt, Luckács, Sartre and complex Marxism, and suggests redefining cultural studies as cultural Marxism and as a critique of capitalism. For this, the economic, political and social formations should be considered and the importance of social classes highlighted (Jameson, 1998).
One of the issues associated with the Cultural Marxist conspiracy is that Cultural Marxism is a distinct philosophical approach associated with some strands of the Frankfurt School, as well as ideas and influences emanating from the British New Left. However, proponents of the conspiracy do not regard Cultural Marxism as a form of left-wing cultural criticism, but instead as a calculated plan orchestrated by leftist intellectuals to destroy Western values, traditions and civilisation, carried out since at least the 1930s (Berkowitz, 2003; Breitbart, 2011, pp. 105–135).
When looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a conspiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School. Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look at descriptions of what they wanted to do: conducting research or changing deeply the culture of the West? Were they working for political science or were they engaging with a hidden political agenda? Were they working for the academic community or obeying foreign secret services?
The concept of Cultural Marxism seeks to introduce readers unfamiliar with – and presumably completely uninterested in – Western Marxist thought to its key thinkers, as well as some of their ideas, as part of an insidious story of secret operations of mind-control[...]
The Cultural Marxist narrative attributes incredible influence to the power of the ideas of the Frankfurt School to the extent that it may even be read as a kind of "perverse tribute" to the latter (Jay 2011). In one account, for example (Estulin 2005), Theodor Adorno is thought to have helped pioneer new and insidious techniques for mind control that are now used by the "mainstream media" to promote its "liberal agenda" – this as part of Adorno's work, upon first emigrating to the United States, with Paul Lazarsfeld on the famous Princeton Radio Research Project, which helped popularize the contagion theory of media effects with its study of Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of The War of the Worlds. In an ironical sense this literature can perhaps be understood as popularizing simplified or otherwise distorted versions of certain concepts initially developed by the Frankfurt School, as well as those of Western Marxism more generally.
Although some members of the Frankfurt School had cultural influence—in particular, some books by Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse were influential on some activists on the New Left in the 1960s—"Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theories greatly exaggerate the Frankfurt School's influence and power. Furthermore, there is no academic field known as "Cultural Marxism." Scholars of the Frankfurt School are called Critical Theorists, not Cultural Marxists. Scholars in various other fields that often get lumped into the "Cultural Marxist" category, such as postmodernists and feminist scholars, also do not generally call their fields of study Cultural Marxism, nor do they share perfect ideological symmetry with Critical Theory. The term does appear very occasionally in Marxist literature, but there is no pattern of using it to point specifically to the Frankfurt School--Marxist philosopher of aesthetics Frederic Jameson, for example, uses the term, but his use of the term "cultural" refers to his aesthetics, not to a specific commitment to the Frankfurt School. In short, Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name.3
Cultural Marxists, the conspiracy theorists believe, now control all areas of public life, including the media, schools, entertainment, the economy, and national and global systems of governance. Not only does this theory vastly overestimate the influence of a small group of intellectuals, the conspiracy theory trades on the Frankfurt School's perceived Jewishness and amplifies antisemitic tropes.
.svg)
