UNIT 3 REPRESENTING AND CRITIQUING

SOCIETY: SUPERSTRUCTURES
Structure
Objectives
Introduction
How to Interpret 'Superstructure'
3.2.1 Law as Superstructure.
3.2.2 Political Superstructure
3.2.3 Religious Superstructure
Actual and Potential Role of Philosophy as Supersbycture
The Realm of Culture and Literature.
The Nature of the Base and its Politics
Some Conceptua) Difficulties.
Let Us Sum Up
Questions
Glossary

3.0
- p p
OBJECTIVES
In this unit we will: . ,

rn consider the concept of superstructure in general and see its ramifications in

politics, philosophy and literature and. ,
explain the nature of base-superstructure relationship.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
First, let us comprehend the way in which social reality and literature are related to
,each other. In my opinion, the relationship is largely faithfil and realistic. We notice
that the novels written in the eighteenth century tell us a great deal about the way
people lived at the time-one thing that particularly comes to mind is that the
eighteenth century men and women were highly courageous and bold and that they
dared to critique the existing notions of morality and ethics. This would have been
unimaginable in the previous centuries. The very idea of using reason to grasp the
complex questions of human behaviour would ruffle a few feathers. The writers were
courageous enough to comment on the burning issues of the day even if it went
against the interests of the privileged sections. Eighteenth century literature is so
different in nature and content that one is left wondering where all those kings,
-
queens, princes and princesses have gone who so strongly dominated the literary
representation in the earlier centuries. It is a simple question but we should seriously
consider it to know that literature shows to the reader what it sees in. its surroundings
and that the relationship between the two ,,is vital.
-
Does literature also critique the surroundings in which it is produced? I ask this in
somewhat precise terms because words such as "showing," "representing" or
"reflecting" do not necessarily indicate the possible act of critiquing by a literary
work. Critiquing involves a point of view that the writer adopts. In case the writer
does so, from where has s h e received the point of view? Again, how has this point of
view evolved in the course of living and writing? A related question could be: how
'
does it pertain to the reality of the time when the work was composed? Finally, the
work itself makes its specific assertions and emphases and chooses particular
sequences of narration. Do these things also not betray the existence of a point of
Mamist View of view? In the following pages, I plan to acquaint you with these and other aspects of
Literature writing from an angle that has been characterised as Marxist.

3.2 HOW TO INTERPRET SUPERSTRUCTURES

In order to explain social reality, Marx uses the metaphor of 'a building', which has a
base or a structure (foundation, pillars) and a superstructure, something standing upon
or emerging from the foundation. The building can be characterised as wholeness
consisting of highly active parts. In the previous unit, we cast a glance largely at the
base or what can be called the mode of production. This base determined the lives of
people in all aspects and drew lines within which the whole of social existence was
enclosed. Such a structure was useful in that it provided economic sustenance and
organised productive activity for the people. The social structure also compelled
human beings to follow the laws of production, to achieve facility and ease in life. In
this sense, the structure was a "condition of existence" in more ways than one.

What about the superstructure? Did superstructure run parallel to the structure and,
therefore, have an existence independent of organised human production? Some of us
assign such independence to norms of morality, philosophical ideas and literature,
and allow it to emerge in our discourse thought-categories such as 'literary history'
and 'philosophical evolution.' Do we not? But if such a thing as literary history were
possible, there would certainly be a world of superstructure totally unconnected with
the actual conditions of people (structure) in history. What is the case? The Marxist
position on this question is that the superstructure is closely linked to the base in the
final analysis and is determined by it.

According to Marx, superstmcture was totally man-made, unlike the base in which a
strong component of nature (inanimate and animate) existed. Whereas base manifests
the planned collective labour of men and women under a social framework,
superstructure is evolved to interpret, explain and justify the distribution of social
surplus. As people fight for survival in the base, they become conscious of its nature
in their minds, which constitute the area of superstructure. Understandably, a society
formed of and working through contending classes under a mode of production
requires a great deal of conscious explanation as to why a small section of society
should enjoy ownership of wealth and resources and an overwhelmingly large mass
of people live at the subsistence level. This is what everyone would like to know.
Firstly, in spite of an oppressive state machinery - army, police, bureaucracy - to
protect the interests of the privileged few, the owning section needs an acceptable
social argument to say that they have a legitimate claim on the surplus wealth
generated on the strength of human labour through the working of a particular mode
of production. The law most substantially meets this need, or what Marx called 'the
legal superstructure.'

3.2.1 Law as Superstructure

What actually happens is that at every point in history, competent minds work
assiduously to frame laws that would 1egiGmise the misappropriation of socially
generated resources by a few in society. The property owners misappropriate the
surplus 'legally.' In this sense, the existing law at a particular time becomes the
perspective for the state to function under, it provides sufficient ground for the large
bureaucracy (civil, military) and the judiciary to enlarge upon implement and
administer 'justice.' See the irony. Justice is interpreted and explained according to
the requirements of a mode of production and projected on behalf of the privileged
sections as something moral, spiritual and universal! Thus, justice is simply
understood as social sanction for exploitation and misappropriation (the owning
classes, however, describe it not as misappropriation but their right) and is complexly
worked out in high philosophical terms. Notice also how legal luminaries in societies
carry on debates about it all over the world.
 supersuucrure is quite close to the working of the mode of
r x v w = v s l , lcgm
Representing and
Critiquing Society :
production, it directly deals with the rationale of social distribution and persuades'the
Superstructure
working people to believe that they have a right only on what they get as wages.
Religious, philosophical and cultural superstructures have a somewhat tenuous link
with the base, since individuals active in these spheres have the strange notion of
independent operation.

3.2.2 The Political Superstructure

Marx has accorded a most important place to the political realm of human existence.
According to him, it is mainly politics in which people fight their battle for change.
Political formations such as parties play such a vital role in the life of a society that
each formation is supposed to project the view of a distinct class and mobilise masses
on behalf of that class. One can scarcely overlook the role of trade unions in mid-
nineteenth century England and France, which focused popular attention on the
burning issues of the day. Politics has remained so crucial to the ruling bourgeois
classes in England that it has enabled entrepreneurship and industry to decisively
seize economic power and privilege from the feudal nobility and aristocracy in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The lesson to be learnt from the role politics
has played in history is that it should be considered the science of changing society.
The supremacy assigned to the political superstructure by Marx and later radical
thinkers is due to the fact that it acts directly on the base to transform its working.
Politics has also the greatest sense of immediacy and urgency in that it is entirely
present-centred and contemporary. In fact, it is politics that lends an activist edge to
philosophy, ideology, religious beliefs, culture and literature. You would notice that
this entire block on the Marxist idea of literature is permeated, as Marx would have it,
by the desirability of change along humanist lines. It is for this reason that I have
sparingly discussed politics or the role of political superstructures as separate from
other superstructural realms.

3.2.3 The Religious Superstructllre

It may sound odd that the divine and Godly aspect has a tangible link with the social
structure, that the ahistorical and universal-looking religious principles have deep
roots in the society of their times. These principles establish concrete links with the
society in which they exist and play a definite role. They influence change and
modify or strengthen people's views. There is no doubt that at the apparent level,
religion appears to be placed far above people's mundane existence and seems to
guide them from a distant spiritual position. However, we can put a clear stamp of
social pressures and compulsions on religious beliefs as well as practices. If
Christianity has undergone so many changes since the renaissance, the reason could
surely be traced to the developments in the economy and polity of European societies
of the time. We would also notice that the visualisation of God at two points of time
has been done radically differently, that the feudal concept of God is not the same as
the capitalist one, the former being oppressive, overbearing and paternally beneficent
and the latter a relatively friendly, persuasive and sympathetic entity. It would be
fascinating to study religious principles from this angle where the norms and ideas
behind people's general spiritual responses reflect myriad facets of an actual social
belief rooted in time. In this context, we can refer to Milton the poet who captures
distinct forms of the Divine attitude in God and Son in Paradise Lost. Because of the
changes at the base, the idea of God and Christianity acquires an altogether new ring
in the writings of the eighteenth century. What concrete shape does the Christian
dimension of human behaviour assume in the post-Cromwellian era and how do we
appreciate the rationale behind this developme;lt?

The religious superstructure has two clear end-points - the first toucl~ingthe
emotional-spiritual state of ordinary people and the second one compelling religious
thinkers, poets and writers to correlate new repponses to the already established
 notions of spirituality and religiosity. The two coalesce into a new outlook, whlch
7

Marxist View of
Literature attempts answers to fresh social questions. Take the example of Parson Adams in
Fielding's Joseph Andrews. Adams is not a traditional and rigid preacher of
Christianity. Instead, he is a good friend, enjoys fun and is fond of reading as well as
ale. His parametres are Christian, but within them one sees a great deal of the
eighteenth century English response. Adams symbolises the religious superstructure
at its active best and Fielding who captures its working in the novel himself seems to
be enjoying the presence of a strong secular component of it. Adams is the rel'g'1 lOUS
need of the hour in the eighteenth century without whose help the new class of
merchants and traders cannot internalise the old values of Christian tradition. He is a
concrete eighteenth century construction of the religious idea - genuine spirit of
helpfulness, loyalty, learning and optimism.

Philosophical and cultural superstructures work in a still more intricate way. The
reason behind the manner of their peculiar functioning 1s that that they deal wlth
ideas, feelings and emotions. Faith distinguishes religion from philosophy and in the
latter, one has to work out, analyse and explain rather than merely tell or preach.
There is little scope for questioning or doubt in the former (faith does not allow
query) while it is the mainstay of philosophy. In this way, the philosophical
superstructure gains further independence from the base. The two end-points I have
talked of in the case of religious superstructure are absent here, particularly in the
case of philosophy.

While discussing this, one thing that is to be particularly kept in mind is that there is
no one-to-one correlation between these superstructures and the economic mode and
that the economic mode is visible to people more as a distortion than in realistic
proportion. Why? This may be so because the nature of the base is grasped and
comprehended, rightly or wrongly, in the consciousness of people. Let us, therefore,
see how people become conscious of the base in philosophy - the arena of thought.

3.3 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY

AS SUPERSTRUCTURE
Abstractions in philosophy serve the purpose of unifying ordinary details of life into a
coherent pattern. This is an important function from the point of view of society.
Ordinary occurrences in life do not tell us much unless they are seen together as part
of a phenomenon. Helping us to place day-to-day happenings in a general
perspective, philosophy becomes the business of making sense and directs people's
perceptions towards definite attitudes. This act of thought on the part of the ruling
class can be defined as their attempt to harness philosophy for political use. There is,
however, a problem. Philosophy by nature is not passive and can stretch itself to see
beyond the limits set by a governing order. It can so happen, as it does in many a
case, and to the detriment of precise analysis of an existing mode, that when raised to
a higher level, this business of making sense provides the aura of universality to this
'important human endeavour. By the sheer force of abstraction, philosophical activity
makes the occurrences of a period appear timeless. As I have said, this has pitfalls.
But the broadened scope of philosophy has also turned out to be useful in specific
phases of history. This shows how active and autonomous superstructural elements
may be. We do, for instance, identify ourselves with events and people of faraway
countries since, philosophically seen, they appear connected with us in thoughts,
values and aspirations. Geographically and culturally apart, people of different
societies can be knit into an impressive pattern under categories such as race, creed or
broad humanity.

What happens when we question and critique the values and moral preferences of a
time? I raise this question to suggest that philosophical activity, because of its social
potential, is a double-edged weapon. At a particular time, we raise objections to
certain happenings because we do not derive enough satisfaction from the life around
 us. This clash of opposing values in the philosophical superstructure eqables us to Representing a
evolve alternative principles of behaviour. At least, we start looking at the existing Critiquing Soci
norms and principles, which became well entrenched in the past. Suppose we did it in Superstructure
the case of thought-patterns that obtained in the past and questioned their basis in a
new situation. This would be a subversive intellectual activity. The activity would
put us in a different grade of intellectual courage and call upon us to confront the
. vested interests on the strength of our reasoning capability. We would then, to use
M m ' s phrase, be confronting "reality with reason." It is possible that while doing so,
we may have been inspired by developments in another country. See the leap of
philosophy, of thought, from one country and society to another. In this sense, the
scope of philosophical discourse is immense. At the same time, the philosophical
discourse on many an occasion places normative or religious ideas under the gaze of
human rationality and opens up vast areas of useful reflection. In the process, as we
noted above, we may feel that philosophical abstractions help us transcend the
barriers of time and place because of which we could establish meaningful links with
developments in other periods and societies. That is why philosophical ideas and
truths of another time still appeal to us. As I have said, this cannot be explained with
direct reference to the economic mode but has to be studied in its specific evolution.

3.4 THE REALM O F CULTURE AS SUPERSTRUCTURE

We confront this nature of an active and autonomous superstructure still more clearly
in the case of culture and literature. These segments of human life in particular phases
of history project joys, pains and sufferings of human beings existing then in such a
way that they (joys, pains, etc.) appear to be the expressjons of our own feelings and
emotions at present. What is this particular way? Does this suggest that a kind of
intensity and immediacy enters the represented feelings and makes it attractive to a
distant audience? It is for this reason, perhaps, thac literary works produced far away
from our time and place touch deep chords in our heart. It cannot, therefore, be said
that culture and literature bear a direct or immediate connection with a specific base.
They indeed give the impression that they do not at all belong to the realm of
superstructure of a particular epoch, but appeal to humanity as universal and timeless
phenomena.

We can approach this question fiom a different angle also. In spite of some
universalistic features, literature, philosophy and religion bear a close relationship to
their social environment, and in one particular respect - that of playing a role - they
become as concrete a segment of society as economy. These are shaped and
constructed by those active men and women who have been deeply engrossed in the
processes of changing their environment -be they concerning faiths, values, ideals or
norms. Yes, faith, values and ideals are not God-given or universal. They only appear
to be so. Actually, they are constructs, consciously forged ideas to explain specific
trends, which people use in their lives. And since they are constructs, the privileged
sections in society always keep track of them, monitor them for the purpose of
ensuring their own class security and safety in the existing order. Thus, superstructure
is not left untouched or unmediated by the base but in fact is sought to be consciously
tempered to perpetuate the class rule. We cannot deny that processes of intellectual or
emotional life that engage the attention of people at a particular time touch upon their
vital social interests. We cannot ignore the fact that the state or'the powers that be
come out openly in support of religious thinkers, philosophers and writers and
patronise them in modem times. Also note that those philosophers and writers are
chosen for support and patronage by the state that willfully ignore the question of
justice and equality. The point I am making is that the privileged sections take deep
interest in what I call the construction of facts and ideals. We notice almost daily that
certain writers and thinkers make it their mission to, not merely uphold but explain as
well religiosity and spirituality while there are those who courageously subject any
such idea to critical examination fiom the humanist angle. Conversely, the sections
that control society also look unkindly at those writers whose ideas and imaginative
Marxist V i i of representations prove ;monvenient to the existing set-up. History is replete with
Lirerature ' examples of state or social repression of a number of thinkers, writers and artists.
This makes our task of comprehending and judging reality extremely difficult. At the
same time, it is this concrete activity of writers vis-a-vis their environment that
imparts significance to their work. They write to uphold or attack, acquiesce in or
question a trend. What I wish to stress here is that cultural and philosophical
superstructures have a great deal of intimate connection with the structure prevailing
at the time of their emergence. In fact, the close identification of a writer with the
issues of hisher time lends such intensity to their works that the works inspire not
merely contemporary readers but also those of posterity, a point I have touched upon
above.

As is clear, M a n made a distinction between not only the structure and the
superstructurebut also between different superstructures. This was done to suggest
that superstructures do not directly correspond to the social reality of their time and
have in fact a specificity entirely their own. But the concept of specificity should in
no way be used to separate the superstructures from their base or from one another. In
times of intense change, the cultural superstructure, the most distanced from the base,
may assume political overtones and can work almost directly on the base. Let us take'
the example of political and literary superstructures working in unison. In a limited
sense, the political activity of a period is closely related to the governing and
governed classes, the two, standing face-to-face with each other in hostile
confrontation. In this sense, politics may be considered the most active part of
superstructure, so much so that in fact, it could appear a very necessary segment of
the base itself where the employers and employees confront each other physically and
argue about their respective standpoints. Wlat I imply is that particularly working
people become active in the political superstructure to bring about a radical change in
their social environment, which means that they get together under a commonly
conceived programme and hit collectively at vested economic interests. This is done
by the mass of human beings not necessarily in terms of violent subversion of the
state machinery or civil society behind which the ruling class stands organised in any
case, but through winning over the majority of the members of society to their side.
On their part, the governing class is constantly busy in proving to the society through
its political formations that its role is that of a responsible leader. Whatever fissures
occur in the social sphere under this phenomenon require to be assiduously explained
by politics on h t h sides in terms of shifts from accepted norms of propriety, morality
&d tradition.

The governing class also distorts and misinterprets through its political formation the
emerging political alternative. Consider the manner in which the feudal structure in
England fought in so many devious ways with emerging democratic +rends. The fact
was that, as Andrew Milner has stated, "By the seventeenth century the subordinate
capitalist mode of production had developed to the point at which it came into clear
contradiction with the dominant feudal mode" (John Milton and the English
Revolution - London: Macmillan, 1981, p. 66). That it crumbled gradually under
pressure from a new and progressive bourgeois class is not indicative of its weak
social urge or motivation. It was an extremely violent struggle. The process of actille
hostility between the two classes lasted well over a hundred and fifty years and the
eighteenth century witnessed an inexorable march of the new class towards complete
domination of society. Today, we can see this inevitability of historical emergence in
the eighteenth century clearly since we stand at a distance in time from the
phenomenon. But imagine the case of those writers who stood in the thick of things
and bore upon their nerves the pressures of the day. This long and complex process
was well captured by writers such as John Milton, Henry Fielding and William Blake.
See how their writing is marked by the distinction between good and bad, right and
wrong, desirable and undesirable. They were not humanist writers in the usual sense
of the term but were sharp critics of those tendencies that worked against the interests
of the common masses. These writers were intelligent enough not to be taken in by
words such as 'tradition,' 'patriotism,' honour' and 'virtue.' They took it as their job
to approach the reader with the message of change. There is no doubt that their Representing and
literary behaviour involved a great deal of debate, disagreement and even violent Critiquing Society :
exchange of words. And the whole thing corresponded to that which happened in the Superstructure
political sphere of the period. The point to note is that clashes and confrontations in
the political superstructure had a direct impact on what has been called the economic
mode of production and that the political superstructure derived its punch, its
effectiveness from its linkage with the socio-economic reality.

How is the cultural superstructure or more relevantly literature distinct in its

operation from the politics of the period? The question is well asked since there does
exist a clear gap between the two superstructures. Literature, for instance, recognisb,
different parametres of its activity and addresses those issues more sharply, which
relate to the emotional and moral needs of people. It also uses what can be called the
imaginative mode under which focus is provided to vital and central areas of life as
against those, which are'trivial or mundane. The imaginative mode helps the writer
concentrate upon the chosen areas of existence, which can become symbols of
dynamic behaviour in course of time.

3.5 THE NATURE OF THE BASE AND ITS POLITICS

Regarding the base, Marx's observation is that in actual history, it changes through a
great deal of violence. The reason is simple. Marx clearly saw that the owning class
of the day put up stiff resistance to the forces of change. You cannot persuade an
owner to give up his wealth, land and privileges for the benefit of a more progressive
section, the real producers, or for the greater good of society. Under capitalism
particularly, the greater good can wait. What is considered essential is personal profit.
This is in spite of the fact that most religious thinkers, poets, saints and mystics tell
the world about the evil influence of money, power and prestige. There is no doubt
that these people are right in their observation about the society of their time. But the
owning classes pay lip service to them and to the ideals they preach. In reality, the
owners protect their pnvileges with all their might. Hence the question. The example
of the Cromwellian revolution in England comes to mind when a whole society stood
up against the king and by dethroning him, took over the reins of power. It was not a
peaceful transition from monarchy to republicanism by any reckoning. There were a
large number of people, specifically those supporting monarchy and feudal land-
relations, who found the new ideas of equality extremely threatening. This made
them side with the king who with the traditional authority and divinely sanctioned
superiority could sway the mind of the common English people. However, the king
did more than appeal to the sense of tradition of his subjects. He felt greatly
threatened by the emergence of new ideas of equality, justice and human endeavour.
Seeing the potential danger of this new awareness, he decided to ride roughshod on
those who championed new values. The aristocracy stood solidly behind him in this
venture of attack on the forces of change. On the other side were the merchants and
traders of the day who had emerged from the commonalty of English life and still had
deep roots in it. They led the people in their revolt and hit back to capture important
points of power. Of course, unity among them required a good deal of planning,
forethought and vision. These latter were people fired by idealism and high notions of
morality. English criticism of today is not able to give due recognition to this aspect
of the Cromwellian revolution. Why? Try to find an answer to this question. From
my side, I give a clue. Most English criticism today is ill equipped to withstand
pressures of contemporary bourgeois ideology and shows no signs of having a free
and objective outlook. Consequently, it is biased against the idea of change and
dynamic thought. I shall elaborate it later in this block. Coming back to the
antagonism that existed between aristocracy and the common people in seventeenth
century England, one saw a growing idealistic upsurge in the sixteen thieies and
forties. In the process, as we know, King Charles.1was executed and his son ran
away to France. It is true that the newfound power of the people lasted only for a
short while but a mortal blow had been dealt at the prevailing base, which became
&st View of totally different from what it was before the revolution. Land relations were radically
'rature changed and the merchants became more powerful. They could now decisively direct
the path of the parliament. Politics in the parliament could no more be used to the
detriment of the newly emerged sections of trade. In Milner's words, "The English
bourgeoisie had disposed of one recalcitrant king, and it was to prove perfectly
capable of disposing of another in 1688 ... In this manner, the whole structure of the
feudal absolutist state was abolished and replaced by the quite dzffeerent set of
political institutions which composed the constitutional monarchy" (73). That is what
happens at the base when the spirit of change threatens and takes control of the minds
of men.

3.6 'SUPERSTRUCTURES' - SOME CONCEPTUAL

DIFFICULTIES
Great and decisive changes occur at the base - it is there that the two opposing
classes fight unto finish for survival. Such violent clashes do not occur in the
superstructure. Marx has said, "With the change of the economic foundation, the
entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed". The word
"transformed is quite significant since the superstructure, according to Marx,follows
the changes in the base. One important example is of the legal superstructure which
legitimises and facilitates the running of the new system. We notice that in law the
influences of change can be seen first and lawfollows the restructuted base later.
However, the case of philosophy, ideology or culture is not the same. People discern
the possibility of change as well as its negative or positive aspects in philosophy or
ideology much before the occurrence of social upheaval. Also, echoes of
dissatisfaction, grievance and complaint get reflected in literature prior to the
happenings at the base. In this sense, all these superstructures influence the base and
intensify the conflict there rather than be transformed by it. Keeping this in mind,
transformation should not be taken literally. Therefore, we have to interpret Marx's
statement about superstructure in a different manner. The question ought to be: How
do people become conscious within the superstructure of their conditions of existence
if.the change takes place first in the base? To repeat, how do people become active in
the political superstructure and throw away the shackles of the prevailing base, which
has become redundant and needs to be changed so that the productive powers of
humanity are free to flow in a progressive historical direction? I will leave it as a
question for you to ponder over, as to how Marx's view of the base-superstructure
relationship should make sehse to you.

The next issue we can raise is linked with historical conflict. Marx says that we have
to distinctly understand the nature of ideological transformation of "the legal,
political, religious, aesthetic or philosophical - in short ideological forms in which
men become conscious of this conflict (between productive forces and relations of
production) and fight it out."

While commenting generally on the base-superstructure relationship, Marx only

briefly expressed his view. Actually, Marx talked of the base-superstructure
relationship in simple, clear terms with the aim that these two components of social
reality would be understood in theory, in abstraction. He wished to be sure that social
scientists and activists comprehended the crucial existence of a base. Marx's idea of
the base proved that the idealist thinkers, given to wanton flights of fancy, were
wrong in believing that social reality was some kind of clay open for wishful
moulding by human beings. Without presenting the base as a decisive and quite
difficult factor, Marx could not emphasise the importance of social change at the
level of the mode of production. I repeat Marx's basic premise that, "The
philosophers have so far interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it."
This meant that social reality had to be taken out of the domain of philosophers and
put in the hands of those who were the real producers, the proletariat. Till one did it,
nothing decisive would happen. The concept of base was meant to work totally
against those who as idealists merely "interpreted" the world, while the world with its Representing and
all-goveming and influencing base remained intact to exploit and oppress the Critiquing Society :
working masses of society. Once this was accepted in theory, we can easily recognise Superstructure
that the superstructure as a realm of human thought and creativity interacts in fact
significantly with the base.

3.7 LET US SUM UP

For Marx, it was necessary to emphasise the concept of base since it provided solidity
and materiality to the discourse of change. What I mean is that the discourse of
change operates in the superstructure -politics, philosophy, religion, culture - while
its specific effectiveness and significance is derived from its deep cognisance of the
mode of production. Thus, the discourse of social change becomes from an idealist,
philosophical exercise to one which works as a real palpable force and touches the
vital areas of human existence -how people in a society produced things for the
common good, how they related to one another and how at the same time they
responded to the questions of social acceptability and desirability, conviction and
commitment.

3.8 OUESTIBNS
1. What does superstructure stand for in Marxist criticism? Also consider
whether literature is an important part of superstructure.

2. Owners of the means of production resist social change at all levels -

economic as well as political, ideological and cultural. Do you agree? Give a
reasoned answer.

3.9 GLOSSARY
Ahistorical: Outside of and away from history. The ahistorical
attitude leads to abstraction and arbitrariness in
discussion.

Cromwellian Revolution: The great political assault led by the republican

leader Oliver Cromwell on King Charles I in 1640.
The fight encompassed the whole of English society.
Following the revolution, England came to be ruled
through a parliament by the commonwealth, a
collectivity of modem progressive forces of money
and productive power.

Misappropriation: A loaded word. It indicates the unjust nature of

surplus distribution under which socially produced
surplus is wkongly snatched away by the individual
entrepreneur. Under this arrangement, the actual
producer, the factory worker, merely gets his wages,
not a share in the produce.

Specificity: Concreteness. A specific or concrete phenomenon

has features of an actual happening that cannot be
visualised in other circumstances or situations.
UNIT 4 COMMITMENT 'IN LITERATURE
Structure

Objectives
Introduction
Who is a Committed Writer?
The Committed View of Issues
The Committed and the Other View of the Same Phenomenon
Commitment and Tradition
The Theoretical Base
Literature as Education: Direct Interaction with Public
Let Us Sum Up
Questions
Glossary

4.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit, let us:
define and explain the role of a writer fiom the Marxist point of view
elucidate, under this perspective, that literary writing assumes an activist political
dimension
and probe the theory behind committed writing.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Till the middle of the nineteenth century, commitment did not figure as an issue in
discussions about literature. It need not have. Every important writer till that time
showed keen interest in the affairs of society and adopted a clear approach to the
problems of the day. The Romantics, for instance, shared with the readers their
disgust and hatred for the ways of city life which they found artificial and narrow.
Disturbed and anguished as the Romantics remained, they aspired for an existence
that was simple, natural and spontaneous. Their rejection of 'reason,' the faculty that
set much store by planning and conscious effort, and preference for 'imagination'
indicated a sharp sense of critique about the surrounding reality. For them,
'imagination' countered all this and enabled man to see "the life of things," as
Wordsworth put it. No wonder that the established and entrenched interests in culture
as well as society did not take kindly to the Romantics and ignored their assertions.
On their side, the Romantics did not care. See whether modem writers have the same
kind of attitude towards their society.

However, things changed drastically in the latter half of the nineteenth century from
what they were earlier. In the first decade of the twentieth century and later, the
English writer began drawing the line between the social and individual, between that
which could be shared with the reader on the basis of common interests and that
which the writer felt and thought only individually. That the individual thought and
feeling could also typify the thought or feeling of a group in a society remained
outside the purview of the twentieth century writer. The studies of the working of the
human mind done in the latter half of the nineteenth century may have contributed to
this development. Is this a correct guess? In my opinion, it is not merely that
psychology as a new branch of knowledge influenced the writer and made himlher
delve deep in the mind and consciousness of people. In the first place, is it not
possible that psychology itself as an independent area of study had its origin in the
way the nineteenth century writers, particularly those who wrote in the thirties, forties
and fifties, understood and interpreted their experience? This is bome by the fact that
a large part of nineteenth century English literature is full of representations with the