How to Build a Better Monster

Embarking on Marxism: Exploring other “Engels” in literary theory

Welcome to the latest incarnation of my academic weblog! My independent study on the role of women in horror film has unfortunately ended (although everything I read during that time continues to inform my film watching and my perception of the world around me), but I’m now embarking on a new study. To prepare for grad school and to better equip myself as a tutor for Dr. Arnzen’s Literary Criticism class, I’m reading from a cultural studies text (Media and Cultural Studies: KeyWorks, eds. Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner) and analyzing what I’ve read in this blog. I’ve tried to reconfigure my blog design, but my frustration with coding and distaste for blogs have kept me from successfully mastering a new design. Keep in mind that I’m not aiming for layout experience; I’m striving to beef up my background in theory!

I started my study by reading excerpts from some quintessential Marxist works. I don’t feel particularly confident in this field, but I recognize its importance and I’m trying to work out an understanding of the vocabulary introduced in the texts and the “big ideas” connected to those key terms. This week, I read Marx and Engels’ “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas” from their Collected Works and Antonio Gramsci’s “History of the Subaltern Classes; The Concept of ‘Ideology’; and Cultural Themes: Ideological Material” from The Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.

The piece by Marx and Engels begins with the authors’ claim that the ruling class is responsible for the dominant ideas of society. Furthermore, the class that services as the dominant or ruling material force (capable of production) is also the ruling intellectual class. The assertions of Marx and Engels lead me to these “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?” type questions:

1) Does a class “rule” or become dominant because it has ruling ideas? Or do ruling ideas bring a class into a position of dominance? And,
2) Does the class become dominant as a result of its material means, or does the class’s capability to produce lead it to dominance?

In order to answer these questions, I think it would be necessary to identify the ruling class in any given society. According to Marx and Engels, the members of a ruling class “possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think.” The dominant rulers, at least in M&E’s view, are those of intellectual capability. With that said, I’ve come to the conclusion that the ruling class, as defined by M&E, is largely intellectual and born of an idea or shared ideas. And as a result of their intelligence, they learn how to dominate through material means.

What constitutes the dominant class of American society? I can’t say that I’m able to pick out a “class” exactly – I feel more comfortable picking out a “structure.” Although I’d love to point a finger at the U.S. government, I don’t think our political system is nearly as strong or effective as we sometimes imagine it. Ultimately, I think that the driving force behind American society is the media.

The individuals who make up the media are undoubtedly educated and savvy when it comes to assessing the needs and concerns of civilians. The media is more powerful than the government in that it possesses a unique ability to censor and/or to magnify what the government does. For example, the articles we read in the newspaper are never the full story, but the media has the power to show the government as they see fit. Thus, the ideas of the media bigwigs become our own because they’re the only ideas that are accessible (at least to the average civilian).

And as far as being a material force is concerned, I think that the media can claim that too. Through written words and broadcast images, the media affects our concerns for the economy, the stock market, and our personal finances, and it can also toy with our consumer needs. The media encourages us to be money-obsessed and product-driven, and through persuasion, the media masterminds end up controlling material goods.

Again, I remind you that I’m in unfamiliar territory, and I’m uncertain of my own discoveries. However, I think I’m headed in the right direction when I fumble with my claim of the media’s power. In Cultural Themes: Ideological Material,” Gramsci offers something that supports my idea: “A study of how the ideological structure of a dominant class is actually organized: namely the material organization aimed at maintaining, defending and developing the theoretical or ideological “front.” Its most prominent and dynamic part is the press in general [ie: publishing houses, political newspapers, periodicals of every kind, even parish bulletins].”

Gramsci goes on to say that “everything that influences or is able to influence public opinion” contributes to the press and belongs to it. He goes on to cite libraries, schools, and clubs. This seems a bit superfluous to me; although these structures may service hegemony, there are times when they are radical in their opposition to the domineering forces. I would like to think that school is a positive force that contributes to one’s education, and not to the power of the press. However, Gramsci might argue that education leads people to become thinkers, and therefore, rulers with intellectual (and therefore dominant) ideas. Who would have thought that by earning my BA, I would actually be furthering the cause I sought to destroy?

Before I end this discussion, I’d like to throw out the idea that blogs (in the form of independent, uncensored news resources – not as personal journals) may be a revolutionary opposition to the ruling class of the media. “The class making a revolution comes forward from the very start, if only because it is opposed to a class, not as a class but as the representative of the whole of society” (Marx & Engels). Bloggers seem to have embraced that idea, as they have emerged to give voices to the stories not being told.

Posted by Kate Cielinski at January 30, 2005 1:21 PM