Marx Theory.pdf

1
UGC MHRD ePG Pathshala
Subject: English
Principal Investigator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad
Paper 16: Cultural Studies
Paper Coordinator: Prof. Pramod K. Nayar, University of Hyderabad
Module No 12: Marxism and Culture Studies
Content writer: Ms. Akhila Narayan, Union Christian College, Aluva
Content Reviewer: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad
Language Editor: Prof. Pramod K. Nayar, University of Hyderabad
Module 12: Marxism and Cultural Studies
INTRODUCTION
Marxism, broadly, can be understood as a body of ‘socio-scientific’ theory that
proposes to explain society, in terms of social inequities, and strives to transform it.
Coinciding with the early stages of capitalism in the 19th
c, Marxist philosophy
originates in the writings of two German philosophers and social theorists: Karl
Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). Their writings provided a
sharp critique of capitalism and an analysis of social world situated along the axis of
economy and class relations. Central to its enterprise is the attempt to combine the
theoretical accounts on society with the social practice of changing it, as expressed by
Marx in the statement: ‘the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various
ways. The point however is to change it.’
Marxism is described as a materialist critique as it insists on analyzing art, literature
and other cultural forms and practices in relation to their historical conditions of

2
production. Such a position is based on the central assumption in Marxism, which
states that the material conditions of existence determine our psychological being. As
Marx says, ‘It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the
contrary their social being that determines their consciousness.’ The historicity of
Marxist approach emanates not merely in its reading of culture and its artifacts against
its concomitant political and economic context but also from its radical understanding
of history which it perceives as dialectical in nature (a point discussed under the
section Classical Marxism).
In the backdrop of failed socialist dream, collapse of the soviet bloc, fall of Berlin
Wall and overthrow of communist regimes in favour of democracies that are
markedly capitalistic, the relevance of Marxism as a political alternative and socio-
cultural critique is widely debated and discussed. However despite its questionable
political relevance, Marxian insights are far from outdated and it is still a useful tool
to read and interpret culture and society. Cultural Studies to a large extent is a
derivative of Marxist ideology. Since its onset, Marxism, as a revolutionary prophetic
theory of human society has undergone several transformations and taken new
directions so much so that there is no longer a monolithic school of Marxism but a
several forms of Marxisms.
CLASSICAL MARXISM:
Classical Marxism applies to a complex yet systematic set of political theories put
forward by Marx and Engels in the mid-19th
c. In its early days, Marxism was less
scientific and more revolutionary in character, as evinced in its seminal document The
Communist Manifesto (1848), which called for workers of the world to unite as a
‘class’ against the capitalist regime. The theoretical backbone of Marxism comes
from German classical tradition of G W F Hegel (1770-1831), the 19th
c British
economics and French revolutionary thought.
Traditional Marxism rests on its twin conceptions of history and the social structure.
Marx’s radical view of history is derived from Hegel’s conception of the same,
though they fundamentally differ in their key propositions. Unlike historians prior to
Hegel, who saw history as random sequence of events, he defined it as progressive in

3
nature, where each event exists in a causal relation to the preceding ones. This implies
that historical occurrences cannot be understood in isolation but need to be perceived
in its totality. Hegel, in keeping with Plato, argued that the only reality is that of the
‘ideas’. These ideas are potent, crude and unrefined but capable of attaining
perfection- the state of the Absolute. Thus history according to Hegel is the process of
the Absolute ‘unfolding itself’. This unfolding takes place in a dialectical fashion
where each idea is a contradiction of or an improvement over the previous one.
Theories and explanations change overtime and since the world, in Hegelian terms, is
but a set of ideas, the history of the world is therefore the history of ideas.
Marx accepted Hegel’s cumulative version of history but strongly disagreed with his
‘mystical’ view of the same. Unlike Hegel who perceived history as progress of the
mind (hence ‘idealist’), Marx had a more mechanical view, where he equated
historical development with the economic one. Marx’s view of history is linked with
his principle theory of social organization. According to which the structure of the
society and social relations are organized around the dominant mode of production.
Thus in the feudal society, which was by and large agrarian, the social structure was
hierarchical, where King was the supreme followed by lords and then the serfs. Under
such a system the ruling class (the aristocrats) were those who controlled the arable
land, where peasants and serfs were employed as mere laborers. It further claimed that
the prevalent forces of production in the material life determine the social, political
and cultural fabric of the society. Based on these premises Marx argued that the only
reality is the material one, thus subverting the Hegelian conception of reality as a set
of ideas.
History of society, Marx argued, is determined by the changing mode of production,
which generates new class structures. These class structures, primarily comprises of
two antagonistic groups- exploiter and the exploited, who are constantly engaged in a
struggle for social, economic and political upper hand. Thus slavery gave way to
feudalism, which was later replaced by the current capitalistic mode of production.
Each of this system of production exposed the inherent contradictions in the former
and replaced it as an alternative. Marx predicted that revolutionary socialism would
similarly expose the inherent discrepancies in capitalism while retaining the positive
aspects of it (like say technology), a prophecy that miserably failed to materialize.

4
Thus, unlike Hegel, in Marx dialectical struggle is material in nature. As history is
seen as grounded in material reality and historical development is seen as product of
class struggles, Marxism is also known as historical materialism or dialectical
materialism. As Marx famously put it, ‘the history of the hitherto existing societies is
the history of class struggle.’
Marxist model of society can be explained using the metaphor of ‘base’ and
‘superstructure’ as it helps to draw links between the economy and social structures.
Accordingly, any society is founded on certain forces and relations of production.
Marx terms this as the base of the society. The base ultimately determines the
superstructure, which comprises of laws, customs, religion, education, government
and other cultural institutions. Thus, the art and culture in the 16th
c and 17th
c
England reflected the relations, norms and values that prevailed under its feudal
structure. This one to one relation where economic factors are seen to determine the
social, political and cultural factor, is known as economic determinism, a view that
has been revised by later Marxists. Since the base determines the superstructure the
latter often serves and protects the interests of the ruling class i.e. those who control
the means of production, here the capitalists.
Another instrument that works alongside the superstructures is ideology. Ideology, a
term studied more closely by Louis Althusser, refers to a set of ideas, beliefs, values
that are validated as truths and determine the way we perceive and relate to the world.
It’s an illusory representation of everyday reality that obfuscates the real conflicts and
tensions of social life. Engel’s described it as ‘false consciousness.’
Drawing a direct relation between economy and the cultural terrain, Marx builds a
strong critique against capitalism by exposing its inherent contradictions. Marx
examines the process of production, the unequal and exploitative nature of class
relations, distortion of labour and nature of human relations within such a system. His
economic theory was primarily intended to raise the consciousness of the working
class aka the Proletariats, who, he believed, in the light of these revelations would
unite to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with socialism. Marx’s theory
of alienation works in this direction. According to Marx, commodities in any given

5
society are products of human skill and labour. These commodities are produced to
fulfill certain ‘use value’ i.e. it is meant to fulfill certain human needs. So for
instance, in the early agrarian or feudal society, a peasant would produce grains,
which will be partially utilized by him with the rest appropriated by the owner of the
land. Goods in these societies were produced mostly for direct consumption. But in a
capitalist society the relation between the laborer and the produce is distorted. Under
a capitalist system, the labourer produces objects not for the use-value but for the
market, for its ‘exchange value’. So, a worker in a car factory participates in the
production process of a car that he might never use. He produces it for the market,
which is least concerned about the individual skill and hard work that goes into the
production of the commodity. As a result the labourer becomes alienated not only
from the product, which he might never use, but also from his labor, which serves the
interest of the market. The labourer thus is dehumanized as he is reduced to mere
‘hands’ and is only a means to profit.
These commodities when they reach the market camouflage the real social conditions
of their production and they acquire a value of their own. When we buy an Apple i6
from the market, we don’t see the actual labour that has gone into the making of the
product, but assess the product in terms of its unique features as if it were inherent in
them. The consumer thus misreads the value of the labour as value of the product. The
commodity, is thus attributed a ‘mysterious’ power of its own. This attribution of
social power to commodities, as if they had will of their own is known as fetishism of
commodities. And the phenomenon where the material relation between people is
confused or replaced with the social relation between things is known as reification
(‘making into things’).
The Frankfurt school draws upon the Marx’s theory of alienation and commodity
fetishism but distances itself from the idealism of Marxism.
FRANKFURT SCHOOL
The Frankfurt school refers to a loose group of German academicians and thinkers
who were associated with the Institute of Social Research at the University of
Frankfurt. The group comprised names like Theodore Adorno (1903-69), Max

6
Horkheimer (1895-1973), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-
1940) and later Jürgen Habermas (1929-). Established in 1923, the school was
dispersed a decade later when Nazis came to power in Germany. It was relocated to
US in 1934 by Horkheimer but returned to Frankfurt during 1949-50. It grew as an
interdisciplinary intellectual movement that drew on disciplines like philosophy,
psychology, sociology and economics and their body of thought became known as
Critical Theory.
The Frankfurt school emerged in the wake of Marxism’s failed prediction of the
working class revolution and its socialist dream and in its inability to reconcile the
harsh realities of the 20th
c. (like the rise of Stalinist Russia, its breed of Vulgar
Marxism, Italy’s fascism, Nazi Germany, holocaust and the Cold War) with
traditional Marxist thought. Marx had predicted that when capitalism had exhausted
itself, it would lead to the rise of the proletariat class who would ensue the Socialist
revolution resulting in a classless society. But nothing of the sort happened and to the
surprise of the onlookers capitalism turned out to be a resilient force.
The critical theorists are notable, in this regard, as a breed of ‘revisionist’ Marxists
who questioned some of the central precepts of the traditional Marxism. Despite
claiming allegiance to Marxism, they distanced themselves from some of its key
doctrines like, crude economic determinism, the Hegelian theory of historical
progress and relinquished the myth of revolutionary proletariat. While Marx’s critique
of capitalism revolved around the mode of production and immiseration of the
working class, the critical theorists explored impact of capitalism in shaping the social
and individual consciousness through such phenomena as mass culture and culture
industry-- a notion faintly similar to Marx’s concept of ‘ideology’. In other words,
critical theory eschewed the analysis ‘class’ and focused on rigorous study of culture.
Critical theory is essentially, thus, a critique of modern culture that focuses on the
sociology of mass society, on the increasing reliance of the society on technology and
mass media and the threat it poses to the human psyche. Their approach was a
combination of Marxism and Freud’s psychoanalysis.
Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer- the founding members of Frankfurt School
explains the process of cultural reproduction through their concept of Culture

7
Industry. According to Adorno, culture industry is a phenomenon of late capitalism
that results from the excessive presence of media and technology in the socio-cultural
realm. Under this, cultural production is akin to industrial process where culture is
commodified and artifacts produced in mass numbers purport to fulfill the fetishes
and desires of the population. The free flow of assorted material goods in the market
with the promise of possessing them, join hands with the omnipresent popular media
and entertainment seducing the masses into a passive submission. Thus a thinking
discerning individual, within a capitalist system, is transformed into unthinking
passive consumer. Culture industry thus depoliticizes the mass population and
discourages them from exploring the harsh social realities. It responds to individual’s
instinctual and physical propensities towards pleasure and fun ignoring the spiritual
and cognitive side. Products of culture industry are characterized by homogeneity and
predictability. Commercialism results in cultural standardization erasing the
differences within culture, so that all cultures become subsumed under a single mass
culture. Thus culture industry leads to a ‘democratization of culture’ while
paradoxically retains the power structures. It studies phenomena like popular culture
to explain the manner in which it erodes, what they perceive as ‘authentic’ culture.
Contrary to the pessimistic view of culture in Adorno and Horkheimer, Walter
Benjamin explains the workings of capitalism in a more positive light. Where Adorno
sees consumers of mass culture as passive, Benjamin attributes them an active role. In
his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Benjamin
examines the changes in culture brought about by mechanical reproduction.
According to Benjamin, technology, by enabling the reproduction of cultural artifacts
and practices has destroyed the ‘aura’ around hem. By ‘aura’ he means the
‘authenticity’, ‘authority’ and ‘autonomy’ that gathers around a text by virtue of its
being unique and ‘irreplaceable’. Technological reproduction has led to the
dissolution of this aura as any work of art can be replicated and made into as many
copies. The presence of the copies of the text weakens the ‘aura’ around the original
as it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the two. The abatement of
aura around the texts frees it from authority and tradition so that it can be appropriated
and reinterpreted to suit a different context. Freed from the confines of tradition the
meaning of the artifact becomes disputable and is determined by the consumer.
Consumption thus becomes a political act in Benjamin.

8
STRUCTURALIST MARXISM
This strand of Marxism emerged in the 1960s under the influence of French
Structuralism and was led by French philosopher Louis Althusser (1918-1990) along
with others like Pierre Macherey (1938-) and Lucien Goldman (1913-1970). It struck
at the very foundation of traditional Marxist thought by challenging Marx’s
teleological view of history and its concept of individual self, thereby a class, as
autonomous and capable of action against the monopoly capitalism. Althusser
attributed such views to the humanistic framework of western philosophy, which was
challenged by theoretical movements like structuralism in the 1960s. His theory
proposes to restore the scientific rigour of Marxism by ridding it of its humanistic,
pragmatic, and historicist tendencies.
Althusser’s theory of society does not concern itself with human action and
consciousness, as they are perceived as being controlled by complex structures that
society is made of which he describes as ‘social formations’. Within such a system the
individual lacks agency and merely function as ‘subjects’. It is these structures rather
than its subjects that dominate his theory of society. Structuralist Marxism defines
history as ‘a process without subjects’ and Marxism as an approach that examines
society as a structural system. Althusser breaks down Marx’s crude theory of
economic determinism that traced a direct one-to-one relation between base and
superstructure. Society is composed of several layers of complex structures that enjoy
relative autonomy and follows its own logic of development, says Althusser. Unlike
classical Marxists who claimed that superstructure is merely a passive reflection of
the base, structural Marxists argued that economy determines culture, but only ‘in the
last instance’. This allows role for political, religious, ideological and cultural factors
and moves away from economic determinism. Borrowing a term from
psychoanalysis, Althusser states that social phenomenon is overdetermined by several
factors at play within the social system and economy acts as determinant only in the
final stage. Thus in Althusser’s conception of base-superstructure, the latter is
decentered and is relatively autonomous.

9
Another key concept in structural Marxism is ideology, a term briefly mentioned
under classical Marxism. Marx and Engels perceived ideology as negative by
describing it as ‘false consciousness’. In Gramsci, it takes on a political sheen in form
of hegemony. In Althusser, ideology is a necessary feature of all social formations. It
has a structural role as it equips people for social existence and since its integral to
social life it is often unconscious or taken for granted. Ideology is a system of
representations, which includes ideas, beliefs, images, myths, discourses etc. that
generates an imaginary relationship between people and their real conditions of
existence. It’s a system that we internalize and which determines the way we perceive
the world. Ideology serves as tool for domination as it naturalizes the unequal power
relations and legitimizes the conditions of existence. It permeates all spheres of
existence as Althusser says, ‘There is no practice except by or in ideology’.
According to Althusser the state or the ruling section imposes its ideology through
State Apparatuses namely: Ideological State Apparatus and Repressive State
Apparatus. These state apparatus facilitate the reproduction of social formations. The
Repressive State Apparatus are visible forms of control that include institutions like
government, police, army, court, prison system etc. They function to maintain the
social order through direct rule and force. As opposed to this, Ideological State
Apparatus, functions covertly, and is more powerful and pervasive. This includes
institutions like family, education, religion, various cultural bodies and political
organizations that works via social indoctrination and conditions individuals into
required social subjects.
Ideology constitutes individuals as subjects through interpellation. It refers to the
process whereby individuals identify with a particular identity and think ‘that me!’
So, though it’s unconscious, there is an element of recognition involved (for example
refer to the case study). It’s a social process whereby social structures (including both
IRA and ISA) hail or interpellate individuals to occupy certain pre-established subject
positions. Individuals are ‘recruited’ and transformed into subjects- self-conscious,
responsible agents that serve the interest of the ruling state. Thus, individuals are
subjects of ideological systems that are always already there. Its not individuals that
act, it’s the ideology that acts through them.
Hegemony:

10
The term Hegemony was used by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci to explain the
manner in which the State (capitalist ruling class) exercises its dominance over the
subordinate sections (working class). Rejecting the economic determinism of classical
Marxism, Gramsci attempted to explain the process of social change as emanating
from realm of superstructure (culture) rather than the base (economy) and emphasized
the role of human agency and voice.
According to Gramsci we perceive the world not objectively but through the
naturalized lens of ideology. But ideology, unlike in Marx, enjoys a relative autonomy
from the economic realm and has the potential for transformation. There are two
decisive way in which the ruling class exerts its control over the population: (1) by
using sheer physical force and (2) by using the more subtle means of ideology.
Hegemony refers to the latter, manipulation of the social consciousness through
control of its ideas. Under this, the interest of the few (namely the ruling class) is
projected and circulated as the interest of the entire population. It presents a view of
life and a system of values, in keeping with the interests of the ruling section, as
natural and the only way of life, which then gets accepted by the rest. Hegemony thus
works through the “spontaneous consent” of the masses who take the projected
interest of the ruling class as the “commonsense”. This production, legitimization, and
manipulation of attitudes and ideas largely take place in and through mass media.
Once accepted en masse, use of physical force legitimizes minor dissensions within
the structure.
The crucial factor in Gramsci’s hegemony is that it allows space for contestation of
the dominant ideology. Gramsci says that the status quo can be challenged with
concerted efforts from the subordinate groups. Revolution demands a genuine
alternative worldview in the absence of which hegemony will reassert self. Thus for
Gramsci, culture is the arena for constant conflicts and struggle and not just a passive
reflection of the economic base.
Cultural Capital:

11
Cultural Capital is a sociological concept that was introduced by Pierre Bourdieu, an
erstwhile Structuralist and a prominent cultural theoretician, whose works engaged
with the Marxist tradition of social theory. Both Marx and Bourdieu are in agreement
with the fact that capital forms the basis of power and social status in the society. The
more capital you have the higher you climb in the social ladder. Bourdieu however
stretches the notion of capital beyond the economic to the symbolic realm of culture.
The term cultural capital refers to accrual of symbolic assets like taste, attire,
qualifications, body language, accent, credentials etc. by virtue of being part of a
particular social strata. Cultural capital acts both as unifying and divisive force.
People sharing similar cultural capital like similar tastes in films, art, clothes or food
can generate a sense of identification with a particular group or community and
induces a sense of belongingness. Cultural capital can produce social inequality, as
within a cultural realm certain forms of cultural capital are valued more than the
others. Like economic credentials, absence of sufficient cultural capital can hinder
one’s upward social mobility.
Bourdieu identified three types of cultural capital:
1. Embodied cultural capital refers to the long-standing dispositions of mind and
body. It’s acquired through cultivation and presupposes a process of emodiment
that involves labour and happens over a period of time. In other words it’s not
easily handed down from one person to the other (like say money, property etc.)
but demands personal investment of time and effort. For instance, ones caste,
religion etc. Thus being born into a Brahmin family in India brings with it a
certain kind of cultural capital unlike those who belong to the lower castes
2. Objectified cultural capital operates through the acquisition of objects like say
car, book, instruments, artifacts etc. These objects can be appropriated both
materially (economic capital) and symbolically (cultural capital). Owning a
limited edition pen or having a J K Rowling signed Harry Potter or owning a rare
vintage car is an instance of objectified cultural capital.
3. Institutionalized cultural capital comes in the form of academic qualifications
and credentials that become a sign of intellectual competency. Thus a student
with a degree from IIT would be deemed as intellectually superior than a student

12
from an ordinary college. Or an MBBS or MD has a higher social standing than
say an ayurvedic doctor.
Theory of Culture:
One of the prominent thinkers of the ‘New Left’ and cultural theory, Raymond
Williams revolutionized the approach to the study of culture by broadening its
contours. His theory of culture democratized culture by discrediting binaries like
‘high’ and ‘low’ culture and founded the discipline of cultural studies. As an
academician and as an individual from the Britain’s working class, Williams attached
himself to the tradition of Marxism despite radically altering some of its key
perceptions, especially its attitude towards culture.
Earlier theories of Marxism perceived culture as passive reflection of the economic
structure and their study of culture focused upon establishing this. Raymond
Williams’s theory of culture was a response to this limiting vision.
Based on his study of English culture of the 1840s, Williams described theory of
culture as ‘a theory of relationships between elements in a whole way of life.’ Culture
to Williams was not merely a set of artifacts, but a lived experience of the quality of
life at a time and place, what he calls ‘the structure of feeling’. It expresses meanings
and values and reflected the way people thought, felt and acted. Furthermore, culture
at a particular moment, Williams said, is not fixed, static and unified but marked by
tensions and conflicts among dominant, residual and emergent views. William’s
framework of culture based on the dominant, residual and emergent, helps us to
understand the confrontations and subversions within culture that continuously
attempt to maintain balance in the face of ever changing views.
1. Dominant Culture: It refers to those aspects of culture that are most visible
and embodied by the majority in the society, or those who wield the power,
say the ruling class.
2. Residual Culture: Within a culture at a given time, there are elements of the
past at work. Such elements that were formed in the past but are active in the
present cultural processes are referred to as residual culture. They belong to a

13
different social formation and continue to live long after the social formation
itself has disappeared. They exist in an alternative or oppositional relation to
the dominant.
3. Emergent Culture: It refers to the new meanings, values, practices, and
beliefs that are continuously being created and that present itself as a
challenge to the dominant. This is different from the simply novel elements of
the dominant. Both residual and emergent exist at the marginalized sphere of
experience initially unacknowledged by the dominant. As society changes the
emergent may eventually become the dominant.
To illustrate William’s theory, prior to independence and national reform
movements, caste system was the dominant social system in India along the
lines of which social, political and economic spheres were structured. Though
technically, caste system as a norm for social structuring has long become
obsolete in contemporary India society, the residue of the system remains in
the form untouchability and discrimination in certain pockets. This would
therefore be a residue from the past that is still active in the present democratic
setup. Along with the fight against caste based discrimination we also have
now voices seeking equal rights for transgenders, homosexuals etc. who were
in the margins earlier. These could therefore be termed as an emergent culture
that exists in oppositional relation to the dominant heterosexual society.
Case Study
Fast Food and Culture Industry
Theodor Adorno and Marx Horkheimer identify contemporary culture with culture
industry characterized by mass production and consumption. According to the duo,
mass culture replaces the ‘authentic culture’ and the value system it embodies, with a
new system of values that hinges on pleasure, entertainment, cheapness and excess.
Popular music (punk rock, psychedelic, hip-hop etc.), popular fiction (Mills and

14
Boon, Sci-fi etc.), film industry (like Hollywood, Bollywood etc.), fashion, and fast
food (McDonald’s, KFC, Dominos, Pizza Hut etc.) are products of culture industry.
Take the instance of fast food, a fall out of burgeoning industrialization in America in
the 20th
c., which soon spread across the world, so much so that it has become yet
another symbol of globalization. McDonald’s, KFC, Dominos, Pizza Hut, Burger
King, Sub Way are just some of the popular and leading brands of chain restaurants
that have joints in most of the urban pockets across the world.
Fast food typifies the ‘fast paced’ life of modern times and has changed the meaning
of, the way we relate to and consume food. The value system it embodies is that of the
culture industry as the goods produced are for and aimed at the market. Culture
Industry does not emphasize so much on artistic freedom or creativity as it does about
profits and exploiting the market. The sheer number of outlets of McDonald and KFC
testifies this. The production process in such an industry is highly mechanized and
controlled and it employs low-waged unskilled labour who are alienated from the
production process. Employers do not make any constructive contribution except for
managing the process- taking and delivering orders from the customers. Look at the
McDonalds’ ad ‘Working Together’ (Link 1), where it shows a group of workers
happily going about their jobs but interestingly what they seem to be happy about is
the controlled and efficient manner in which the work gets done, most of which is
done by the machines. The workers make no creative contribution in the actual
production of the food items. The system is akin to that of a factory where laborers
have to work at the pace of machines, get things done very fast, without actually
being involved. The focus, thus, is mostly on their hands and pace of delivery.
Remember what Marx said about human labour being reified, as they are reduced to
merely hands. The motto seems to be, the faster the better. In the Dominos ad (Link
3), this is precisely what is highlighted. You get what you want, wherever you are, at
whatever time of the day.
The products of culture industry are uniform, formulaic and standardized in nature.
No matter where you go you get the same kind of service from workforce that look
similar in their brand uniforms. The uniformity and predictability gets translated to
the familiarity and trust placed on the product. The uniformity can also be traced in
the appearance and packaging of food items mostly through a set of colour codes:

15
McDonalds (mostly in red and yellow), KFC (red and white), Dominos (Blue),
Subway (green and yellow) and also in the format of the menu for instance all items
of McDonalds come prefixed with ‘Mc’, thus, McChicken, McAloo Tikki, McWrap
etc. Thus products are churned out that have proven to be successful, with minimal
innovation. The differences in products are not so much symptomatic of creativity but
rather a method to ensure that no aspect of the market is left unexploited. In other
words, ‘something is provided for all so that none may escape’ (Adorno). So, brands
like McDonalds, KFC etc. might have adapted to different countries like Japan, India,
Egypt, China, Philippines etc., but the message is still the same. For instance names
like McAloo Tikki, Chicken Maharaja Mac, McSpicy, Meal etc. add an Indian touch
to what is traditionally American diet like burger, sandwich etc.
The term fast food describes food that is quickly available at an affordable rate and is
highly convenient (you could eat it while driving or walking towards your
workplace). In other words, unlike in earlier times when food (in the form of
breakfast, lunch, or dinner) exclusively occupied a certain amount of time during the
day (cooking the meal and eating, which in itself was a ritual of sorts), now its
reduced to a chore done alongside other ‘more’ important tasks. Also it’s economical.
You get a burger for just Rs. 20 or 25. In one of the KFC ads it says you get burger at
‘canteen prices’ (Link 5). This idea of getting things easily and cheaply gets
superimposed on to our relationships as well. Look at the ad of McDonalds (Link 2)
where it’s suggested that it will only cost you a McAloo Tikki, priced Rs. 25, to win a
girlfriend. In one of the Dominos ad (Link 7) you have the teacher trying to attract
reluctant students using Dominos pizza. Relationships come as fast as a burger or a
pizza. This notion of affordability is clubbed with that of excess. Culture industry
capitalizes on appearance. The images of fast food carry the message of ‘more’. The
more you pile the happier you get. Look at the imposing images of McDonald’s and
KFC [Fig 1,2,3 & 5]. The tray and the food items are always ‘fully loaded’ [Fig 6],
almost ready to spill over. The focus is invariably on the size and quantity. In fig 1,
the caption says ‘Big, Beefy, Bliss’ and the names of burgers use words like ‘bucket’,
‘double’, ‘deluxe’ and ‘pounder’. Fig 2, is provocative in its claim, ‘But can you
handle me’, and invites the consumer to check out its ‘dimensions’. The challenge in
the last line of Fig 2 ‘Are you Mac enough?’ is a dare to consumer more. A similar
challenge appears in KFC ad ‘Man up’ to have a ‘Double Decker’ burger. Everything

16
is large and excessive, nothing comes ‘small’ and the message is you can have them
‘non-stop’. They convey impression of being rich, more than sufficient. Expressions
like ‘meals’, ‘feast’, ‘combo’ etc. add to this impression, changing the very definition
of these words in the process. The ads invariably zoom in on the very act of
consumption. It’s irresistible both in terms of appearance and taste Expressions like
‘bliss’, ‘seductive’, ‘juicy’, ‘ignite your senses’, ‘tastes good, feels good’,
‘whopperlust’ etc. suggest that consumption of fast food is a pleasurable experience.
The food items are extremely colorful, sizzling, shiny, lustrous and dripping so much
so that you cannot resist it. The images are unrealistic, promising to take you to a
different world altogether. In fig 4, for instance, it says ‘Tastes good. Feels good.’ The
ads show the woman consumed by the taste of the dominos pizza. KFC’s byline says
‘its finger licking good’ (Link 6). McDonald’s says ‘I am loving it’. The continuous
tense suggesting that you will never get tired of it and that every time you have it, it
will entice you all the more. It plays on the ‘newness’ when in fact it’s almost always
the same. Fast Food like other products in the culture industry creates an illusion of
choice. Expressions like ‘I am loving it’, or ‘Have it your way’ creates a semblance of
free choice when in fact everything is predetermined.
Eating food that looks good or make you look good before others makes these fast
food joints, especially in developing countries like India, a form of cultural capital.
Fast food joints in India often have a relaxed, fun loving, leisurely environment where
people belonging to a certain social position gather or spent time. To have a snack
from KFC or Mcdonald’s is an instance of objectified cultural capital as it allows you
entry into a certain social group- urban, fun, entertainment, pleasant, young, and
good. Through the process of interpellation youngsters identify it with ‘being cool’
and urban. Along with consumption there is also assimilation of the certain kind of
identity that comes with it. Fast food joints thus come with a promise of offering all
the fore stated luxuries but in the process obfuscate questions like its impact on
health, or the production process itself.

17
AUDIO/ VISUAL QUADRANT
Figure 1

21
Figure 6
Audio-Visual Links
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_4O3jzW8L0
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmNrvlQ73pU
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4p3q_a1bIk
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtfruwTOPlg
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rmKldVU1c

22
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY4x9wMl8E0
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prp3m-jC9-E
Glossary
1. Dialectical: A method of reasoning whereby opposing views or ideas are
reconciled with each other in order to arrive at the truth. The original idea is
called the thesis; the contradictory idea is described as antithesis and the
reconciliation of the two is synthesis.
2. Mode of Production: It refers to the way in which the production is
organized in a social structure and is a combination of both the means of
production (machines, raw materials, labour etc.) and the relations of
production (the relations among people and their relation to the means of
production)
3. Use Value and Exchange Value: Use value of an object refers to purpose it
serves for the buyer. A commodity in the market along with use value also has
exchange value, i.e. the value it attains in relation to other commodities in the
market, mostly defined in terms of a third factor, money.
4. Vulgar Marxism: A derogatory expression used to describe the rigid and
reductive nature of traditional Marxism that explained superstructure as solely
determined by the base. Marxism under the Stalinist regime came to be
described as ‘vulgar’.
5. Late Capitalism: A term introduced by Ernest Mandel and later adopted by
Frederic Jameson, it refers to the form of capitalism after the Second World
War, characterized by multinational corporates, culture industry, processes of
globalization and free market. It follows the monopoly capitalism that
dominated the first half of the 20th
c.

23
Reference:
1. Bronner, Stephen Eric. Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction. New York:
OUP. 2011. Print.
2. Eagleton, Terry. Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso. 1991. Print.
3. Edwards, Tim. Ed. Cultural Theory: Classical and Contemporary Positions.
London: Sage. 2007. Print
4. Glaser, Daryle and David M Walker, ed. Twentieth Century Marxism: A
Global Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print
5. Hawkes, David. Ideology. 2nd
ed. London: Routledge. 2003. Print.
6. Held, David. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. UK:
Polity Press. 1990. Print.
7. Joseph, Jonathan. Marxism and Social Theory. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2006. Print.
8. Perry, Matt. Marxism and History. New York: Palgrave. 2002. Print.
9. Singer, Peter. Marx: A Very Short Introduction. New York: OUP. 2000. Print.
10. Storey, John. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction. 5th
ed.
England: Pearson Education Ltd. 2009. Print
11. Tallack, Douglas. Critical Theory: A Reader. New York: Routledge. 2013.
Print.

Marx Theory.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Marx Theory.pdf

Recently uploaded

Marx Theory.pdf