Cultural Theory and Popular Culture

70
Chapter 4 Marxisms
subcultural theories, descriptions of the struggle . . . to make their own meanings in
their acts of consumption’ (57).
Despite its Marxist sophistication and admirable political intent, the approach of
the Frankfurt School to popular culture (with the exception of Benjamin) would in
some respects fit easily into the ‘culture and civilization’ tradition discussed in Chapter 2.
Like the perspective developed by Arnold, Leavisism and some of the American mass
culture theorists, the Frankfurt School perspective on popular culture is essentially a
discourse from above on the culture of other people (a discourse of ‘us’ and ‘them’).
It is true that the Frankfurt School are very critical of conservative cultural critics
who bemoaned the passing of, or threat to, a ‘pure’ autonomous culture for its own
sake. Adorno, as J.M. Bernstein (1978) points out, ‘regards the conservative defence
of high culture as reflecting an unreflective hypostatization of culture that protects
the economic status quo’ (15). Nevertheless, it remains the case that there are certain
similarities between the focus of the ‘culture and civilization’ tradition and that of
the Frankfurt School. They condemn the same things, but for different reasons. The
‘culture and civilization’ tradition attack mass culture because it threatens cultural standards
and social authority, the Frankfurt School attack mass culture because it threatens
cultural standards and depoliticizes the working class, and thus maintains the iron grip
of social authority: ‘obedience to the rhythm of the iron system . . . the absolute power
of capitalism’ (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1979: 120; my italics). It is very difficult to
imagine the possibility of political agency in a situation of absolute power.
Althusserianism
The ideas of Louis Althusser have had an enormous influence on cultural theory and
popular culture. As Hall (1978) suggests, ‘Althusser’s interventions and their consequent
development are enormously formative for the field of cultural studies’ (21).
Althusser’s most significant contribution to the field is his different attempts to theorize
the concept of ideology. I shall therefore restrict discussion to this aspect of his
work.
Althusser begins by rejecting mechanistic interpretation of the base/superstructure
formulation, insisting instead on the concept of the social formation. According to
Althusser (1969), a social formation consists of three practices: the economic, the
political and the ideological. The relationship between the base and the superstructure
is not one of expression, i.e. the superstructure being an expression or passive reflection
of the base, but rather the superstructure is seen as necessary to the existence of the
base. The model allows for the relative autonomy of the superstructure. Determination
remains, but it is determination in ‘the last instance’. This operates through what he
calls the ‘structure in dominance’; that is, although the economic is always ultimately
‘determinant’, this does not mean that in a particular historical conjuncture it will necessarily
be dominant. Under feudalism, for example, the political was the dominant