|
Marx's theory of base and superstructure can be found in the disciplines of [[political science]], [[sociology]], [[anthropology]], and [[psychology]] as utilized by Marxist scholars. Across these disciplines the base-superstructure relationship, and the contents of each, may take different forms.
Among Marxists, the very concept of 'base and superstructure' is contentious. The historian [[E. P. Thompson]] argue that:<blockquote>Meanwhile in serious intellectual circles the argument about basis/superstructure goes ''on and on and on''... A whole continent of discourse is being developed, with its metropolitan centres & its villas in the mountains, which rests, not upon the solid globe of historical evidence, but on the precarious point of a strained metaphor.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Thompson |first=E.P. |title=The Poverty of Theory & Other Essays |publisher=Merlin |year=1978 |___location=London |pages=330}}</ref></blockquote>[[Ellen Meiksins Wood]] says: 'The base/superstructure metaphor has always been more trouble than it is worth',<ref>Wood, E.M. (1990: 126). ‘Falling'Falling through the cracks: E.P. Thompson and the debate on base and superstructure.’' In Kaye and McClelland (1990: 124-152).</ref> while [[Terry Eagleton]] describes base and superstructure as 'this now universally reviled paradigm'.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Eagleton |first=Terry |date=2000 |title=Base and superstructure revisited |journal=New Literary History |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=231–40|doi=10.1353/nlh.2000.0018 }}</ref>
However, other Marxists continue to insist on the paradigm's importance. For example, in Paul Thomas' words:<blockquote>Without Marx’sMarx's juxtaposition of base to superstructure we would probably not be speaking of social contradictions at all but would instead be discussing science, technology, production, labor, the economy, & the state along lines very different from those that are commonplace today.<ref>Thomas, P. (1991). ‘Critical'Critical reception: Marx then and now. ’' In Carver (1991: 23-54), ''The Cambridge Companion To Marx''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref></blockquote>Similarly, from [[Chris Harman]]:<blockquote>Far from ignoring the impact of the ‘superstructure’'superstructure' on the ‘base’'base', as many ignorant critics have claimed for more than a century, Marx builds his whole account of human history around it.<ref>Harman, C. (1998). ''Marxism and History. Two Essays''. London: Bookmarks.</ref></blockquote>Or again, from [[Stuart Hall (cultural theorist)]]:<blockquote>Of the many problems which perforce Marx left in an ‘undeveloped’'undeveloped' state, none is more crucial than that of ‘base'base & superstructure’superstructure'.<ref>Hall, S. (2019: 143). ''Essential Essays. Volume 1''. Morley, D. (ed.). London: Duke University Press.</ref></blockquote>
===Max Weber===
[[Gilles Deleuze]] takes a skeptical stance toward Marx's categorization of ideology as a part of the superstructure. Deleuze argues that this categorization minimizes the role that [[Philosophy of desire#Deleuze and Guattari|desire]] plays in forming such systems. He prefers to view ideology as an illusion altogether. In Deleuze's own words:
{{Blockquote
|text=One puts the infrastructure on one side– the economic, the serious– and on the other, the superstructure, of which ideology is a part, thus rejecting the phenomena of desire in ideology. It’sIt's a perfect way to ignore how desire works within the infrastructure, how it invests in it, how it takes part in it, how, in this respect, it organizes power and the repressive system. We do not say: ideology is a [[trompe l’oeil]] (or a concept that refers to certain illusions) We say: there is no ideology, it is an illusion. That’sThat's why it suits orthodox Marxism and the Communist Party so well. Marxism has put so much emphasis on the theme of ideology to better conceal what was happening in the USSR: a new organization of repressive power. There is no ideology, there are only organizations of power once it is admitted that the organization of power is the unity of desire and the economic infrastructure.<ref>Guattari, Félix. ''Chaosophy: Texts and Interviews 1972-1977'', edited by Sylvère Lotringer, Semiotext(e), Los Angeles, 2009, p. 38.</ref>
}}
|
