[PEN-L:32546] RE: base-superstructure model

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: base-superstructure model

I said:>Reductionism here means trying to explain everything in the superstructure by reference to the base. It's silly. <

 
Matt suggests > That would be something like "last instance determinism".  That is when you write long paragraphs why culture, politics, and ideology matter, but in the last sentence say that ultimately the economy is the deciding factor.<

I have a long ms. somewhere where I talk about this. Because the "base" (or mode of production = forces & relations of production) has dynamics that are pretty solid, they do tend to dominate the "superstructure." So I'd say that ultimately, the mode of production is the deciding factor. For example, I'd say that postmodernism reflects the mode of production more than vice-versa.

But I reject the idea that the "economy" is the long-run deciding factory, among other things because I see the economy as involving politics, ideology, culture, etc. The "superstructure" involves these too, but refers to separate institutions, such as the electoral politics system, the ideology-producing institutions (universities, etc.), the cultural institutions (churches, etc.) Bowles & Gintis once explained the difference between (economic, cultural, etc.) "sites" or institutions and (economic, cultural, etc.) "practices" or activities, with the different kinds of practices taking place in all of the sites. It's only the institutions that I see as defining the "base" or "superstructure."

The other reason I reject this is that the economy (as usually defined) excludes class struggle. In fact, the word "economy" is pretty ambiguous, as is "economic determinism."

Jim