“Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

“Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton is an influential essay that first appeared in the Spring 2000 issue of the journal New Literary History. This essay is a significant contribution to the fields of literature and literary theory because it revisits and challenges the traditional Marxist concept of the base and superstructure. Eagleton argues that the relationship between these two concepts is much more complex and dynamic than previously thought. He emphasizes that the base (the economic system) and the superstructure (the cultural and ideological systems) are not simply cause and effect but rather mutually influence and shape each other. This essay has been widely discussed and debated, and it continues to be an important resource for understanding the complex interplay between economics and culture.

Summary of “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

1. Money as a Meta-Good
   • Eagleton opens by discussing how money functions as a “meta-good” in capitalist society. It facilitates the pursuit of various desires and lifestyles without effort. He humorously imagines an alien visitor baffled by the contradiction in human behavior, where money is considered vital but also despised: “The alien would soon find himself puzzling over the performative contradiction between what we said about money and what we did with it” (Eagleton, 232).
2. Contradictions in Economic and Cultural Perceptions
   • Eagleton argues that the discrepancy between money’s importance and contempt is a “genuine conundrum” about its ontological status. He references Marx’s “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” to explore the paradoxical nature of money as both “everything and nothing” (233). This reflects the larger base-superstructure contradiction between economic reality (base) and cultural morality (superstructure).
3. Wealth and Power as Necessary Conditions
   • Drawing from the philosopher Francis Hutcheson, Eagleton explains that wealth and power are not fundamental human desires but essential conditions for achieving other aspirations. He asserts that money is “the capacity of capacities,” a tool that enables various human goals (234).
4. The Economic Base and its Role in Culture
   • Eagleton emphasizes that while the economic base is not the most “precious thing in life,” it is a necessary condition for most human activities, including cultural production. He notes that even socialism requires advanced material conditions, as “socialism is only possible on the basis of reasonably advanced material conditions” (234). Without this, attempts to develop a socialist state could lead to authoritarianism.
5. Culture’s Relative Autonomy from Material Conditions
   • Eagleton critiques both left-wing and right-wing views on the relationship between culture and material conditions. He argues that culture becomes relatively autonomous as a result of material conditions, stating, “art becomes relatively autonomous of its material conditions precisely by being more firmly integrated into the economic” (235). This autonomy allows culture to critique its surrounding conditions.
6. Base and Superstructure Model
   • Eagleton defends the base-superstructure model, arguing that it is not inherently hierarchical or deterministic, but acknowledges its limitations. He critiques the simplistic view that the superstructure (law, culture, ideology) is entirely determined by the economic base, noting that “a school forms part of the superstructure when it has its students salute the national flag, but not when it teaches them to tie their shoelaces” (239).
7. Superstructures and Social Contradictions
   • According to Eagleton, superstructures arise because the economic base is internally contradictory, and their role is to manage these contradictions in favor of the ruling class. He states, “superstructures are necessary…because the productive activity…generates certain social contradictions” (239). Thus, the superstructure is a flexible concept, not rigidly tied to specific institutions or functions.
8. Cultural Materialism and the Future of Socialism
   • Eagleton discusses the concept of “cultural materialism,” which seeks to reconcile the material base with cultural development. He notes that socialism’s long-term goal is to create conditions where people can live by culture rather than economics: “the project of socialism is to try to lay down the kinds of material conditions in which…they will be able to live by culture a great deal more than they do now” (240).
9. Historical Materialism and the Role of Culture
   • In the final sections, Eagleton ties his argument to historical materialism, asserting that the economic is foundational, but culture will become increasingly important as society progresses beyond scarcity and toil. He ends by quoting Oliver Goldsmith to emphasize that culture is “superfluity” built into human nature, necessary yet not reducible to purely economic terms (237-240).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation	Usage in the Text
Base and Superstructure	A Marxist concept where the “base” refers to the economic foundation of society (productive forces and relations) and the “superstructure” refers to cultural, legal, political, and ideological institutions.	Eagleton revisits the base-superstructure relationship, emphasizing that while the superstructure is influenced by the base, it has relative autonomy. He critiques reductive interpretations of the model, arguing for a more nuanced, dialectical view.
Materialism	A philosophical approach that emphasizes the importance of material conditions (economic and social factors) in shaping society and human consciousness.	Eagleton supports a historical materialist perspective, arguing that the economic base shapes culture and consciousness but allows culture some independence under specific material conditions.
Cultural Materialism	A critical theory that examines the relationship between material conditions (the base) and cultural forms, emphasizing the historical context of culture.	Eagleton discusses how culture, while shaped by material conditions, can become relatively autonomous, especially in modern capitalist societies. He explores how culture resists commodification through ideological autotelism.
Dialectics	A method of analysis based on contradiction and change, often associated with Marxist theory. It seeks to understand how conflicting forces (thesis and antithesis) lead to new syntheses.	Eagleton uses a dialectical approach to argue that the contradictions between the economic base and cultural superstructure are essential to understanding their relationship, showing how autonomy and dependency co-exist in culture.
Autonomy	In Marxist theory, cultural or ideological autonomy refers to the idea that certain aspects of the superstructure (like art and culture) may operate independently of direct economic influence.	Eagleton emphasizes the relative autonomy of culture, arguing that culture can critique and resist its material conditions despite being economically determined to some extent.
Commodity Fetishism	A Marxist concept where social relations between people are expressed as economic relations between commodities, obscuring the true labor relations that produced them.	Though not explicitly mentioned, Eagleton alludes to commodity fetishism when discussing the paradoxical nature of money, where it is both “everything and nothing,” masking the true social relations behind its acquisition.
Use-Value vs. Exchange-Value	Use-value refers to the practical usefulness of an object, while exchange-value refers to its value in a market context as a commodity.	Eagleton contrasts use-value and exchange-value when discussing art. He argues that art, as a commodity, resists commodification by asserting its autotelism (self-justification), becoming an image of what life could be like under different conditions.
Ideology	A system of beliefs, values, and ideas that serve to justify the interests of the dominant social group, often obscuring the true nature of social relations.	Eagleton critiques postmodernist and liberal ideologies that downplay the importance of power and material conditions, advocating for a Marxist interpretation that reveals the economic roots of cultural and social systems.
Historical Materialism	A Marxist theory that emphasizes the role of material economic conditions in shaping history and human society. History progresses through the development of productive forces and class struggles.	Eagleton’s essay is grounded in historical materialism, exploring how economic development (the base) shapes culture (the superstructure) and how contradictions within the base necessitate the development of the superstructure.
Performative Contradiction	A situation where there is a discrepancy between what people say and what they do, often revealing underlying ideological conflicts.	Eagleton discusses the performative contradiction in society’s attitude toward money, which is both essential and despised, reflecting deeper contradictions between the material base and the moral superstructure.

Contribution of “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Revisiting and Nuancing Marxist Theory
   • Eagleton’s essay significantly contributes to the ongoing conversation within Marxist Literary Theory, specifically concerning the relationship between the economic base and the cultural superstructure. He addresses how traditional Marxist theory has often been misinterpreted or reduced to economic determinism. Eagleton critiques this simplification by emphasizing the dialectical nature of the relationship: “The base/superstructure model has something valuable to say…though this is nowadays a proportion smaller than those who believe in the Virgin Birth” (Eagleton, 237). By reaffirming the model’s relevance, Eagleton defends its continued applicability in analyzing culture in a capitalist society, arguing that the superstructure can have a degree of autonomy while still being rooted in the base.
2. Cultural Materialism and the Role of Autonomy
   • Eagleton extends the theory of Cultural Materialism by explaining how culture, while economically conditioned, gains relative autonomy under certain historical conditions. This autonomy allows culture to critique its own material origins, a point of significant importance for literary criticism. He states, “Art becomes relatively autonomous of its material conditions precisely by being more firmly integrated into the economic” (Eagleton, 235). This idea that culture can resist commodification while being produced within a capitalist economy has shaped how scholars think about the political function of literature and art.
3. Critique of Postmodernism and Liberal Theories
   • Eagleton’s essay also engages with Postmodernist and Liberal Theories by critiquing their suspicion of power and material conditions. He argues that only a materialist framework, rooted in economic realities, can fully explain culture’s contradictions. He writes, “Only liberals or postmodernists can afford to be suspicious of power. It is selflessness here which is ideological” (Eagleton, 235). Eagleton’s critique of these theories contributes to the broader debate on ideology, reminding literary theorists of the importance of material conditions in shaping culture, rather than abstract notions of autonomy or individualism.
4. Revitalizing the Base-Superstructure Debate in Cultural Criticism
   • Eagleton revitalizes the Base-Superstructure Debate within cultural and literary criticism by highlighting the dynamic, rather than static, relationship between these spheres. He dismantles the misconception that the superstructure is simply a passive reflection of the base, asserting instead that cultural forms actively interact with and sometimes resist their economic conditions. As he points out, “Superstructures are necessary in a Marxist view…because the productive activity to which these bodies give rise generates certain social contradictions” (Eagleton, 239). This approach encourages literary critics to explore the nuanced ways in which literature and other cultural forms are influenced by, but also challenge, their economic foundations.
5. Autotelism and Resistance to Commodification in Literature
   • Eagleton introduces the concept of Autotelism—the idea that literature and art, in asserting themselves as ends in themselves, resist the commodification that defines their economic context. He argues that literature, by claiming “to be its own end, ground, and raison d’être,” opposes the commodifying tendencies of capitalism (Eagleton, 235). This concept contributes to Aesthetic Theory and Marxist Criticism, offering a way to understand how literary texts can be politically resistant despite being produced within a commodified cultural economy.
6. Historical Materialism and Literary Theory
   • Eagleton’s reaffirmation of Historical Materialism—the idea that material conditions shape history and culture—has significant implications for literary theory. He suggests that the study of literature must always consider the historical and material context of its production: “It is what we do which lies at the bottom of our language games” (Eagleton, 238). This grounding of literary criticism in material conditions aligns with Marxist Historicism, pushing literary theorists to interrogate the socio-economic contexts that give rise to particular literary forms and genres.
7. Criticism of Reductionism in Cultural Theories
   • Eagleton critiques the reductionism often found in Culturalist Theories, which either sever culture from its material base or reduce culture entirely to an expression of economic conditions. He argues that culture is neither completely autonomous nor entirely determined by the base but operates within a dialectical relationship with it: “The point of a materialist criticism, then, is to bring to the artifact a kind of double optic” (Eagleton, 240). This dual perspective, where culture is understood both as a product of material conditions and as having a degree of independence, encourages more complex readings of literary texts in relation to their socio-economic contexts.
8. Superfluity and Culture as Surplus
   • Eagleton’s idea that culture is a kind of “superfluity” or surplus to biological needs also contributes to Cultural and Literary Theory. He draws on Marx’s concept of surplus value to explain how culture, though not necessary for survival, is integral to human expression and civilization: “Culture is itself superfluity, that which is strictly surplus to biological need” (Eagleton, 237). This framing challenges literary theorists to consider the role of excess and surplus in cultural production, offering new ways to think about art and literature as both products of and reactions to material surplus.
9. Integration of Marxist Aesthetic Theory
   • Eagleton’s essay integrates Marxist Aesthetic Theory into his analysis, particularly through the concept of art as a critique of its own conditions. He argues that art, in asserting its autonomy, becomes a form of critique against the utilitarianism of capitalism: “Autonomy frees you from being the hired hack of the rulers, allows art to become for the first time critique” (Eagleton, 235). This perspective contributes to literary theory by positioning art and literature as sites of resistance within a capitalist economy, thus encouraging scholars to explore the political potential of literary forms.

Examples of Critiques Through “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

Literary Work	Critique through “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton
Charles Dickens’ “Hard Times”	Critique of Capitalism and Material Conditions: Dickens’ portrayal of the industrial town of Coketown reflects the harsh material conditions of the working class. Through Eagleton’s lens, Hard Times can be seen as exposing the contradictions of capitalism, where economic forces dominate human life. The novel depicts how the economic “base” shapes the moral and educational institutions (superstructure), but Dickens also critiques the inhumanity of the system through characters like Stephen Blackpool, highlighting how cultural responses (literature) can act as resistance to the commodification of life.
James Joyce’s “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man”	Autonomy of Art and Culture: In Joyce’s novel, Stephen Dedalus’s pursuit of artistic independence mirrors Eagleton’s concept of cultural autonomy. Stephen’s journey away from family, religion, and nation can be interpreted through Eagleton’s idea of art asserting its autonomy from the superstructure. Stephen’s decision to live as an artist reflects the tension between economic/material pressures and cultural aspirations, where the artist seeks to escape commodification and the restrictions of the dominant ideologies of religion and nationalism.
Toni Morrison’s “Beloved”	Superstructure and Ideology in the Legacy of Slavery: Morrison’s Beloved reveals how the superstructure of the post-slavery American society continues to perpetuate ideological control over the African-American community. Through Eagleton’s framework, the novel critiques the material base of slavery and its lingering effects on culture and identity. The characters’ trauma represents the contradictions in the economic base of slavery that demanded the repression of black bodies and the shaping of cultural memories. The ghost of Beloved can be viewed as a manifestation of the unresolved social contradictions of this historical base-superstructure relationship.
Virginia Woolf’s “To the Lighthouse”	Art and Domestic Life under Capitalism: Woolf’s To the Lighthouse can be read through Eagleton’s analysis of how culture gains autonomy but remains tied to material conditions. The novel portrays the intricate dynamics of family life within the framework of early 20th-century capitalism. Mr. Ramsay’s concerns with intellectual and economic success reflect the pressures of the base, while Mrs. Ramsay’s nurturing role reveals how the superstructure of gender and domestic ideology is shaped by these economic realities. Through Woolf’s exploration of art (Lily Briscoe’s painting), we see the tension between art’s autonomous form and the material conditions of life, mirroring Eagleton’s concept of art resisting commodification while being grounded in the base.

Criticism Against “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

1. Overemphasis on Economic Determinism
   • While Eagleton critiques overly deterministic interpretations of the base-superstructure model, some critics might argue that his framework still places too much emphasis on the economic base as the primary determinant of cultural and ideological forms. This could lead to reductive readings of literature and culture, where complex cultural phenomena are overly simplified as reflections of economic conditions.
2. Limited Scope of Cultural Autonomy
   • Eagleton’s claim that culture gains “relative autonomy” from the economic base may be criticized for not fully accounting for the true independence of cultural production. Some critics might argue that Eagleton’s view of autonomy is too constrained by Marxist orthodoxy, not allowing for a fuller recognition of how culture can operate independently of economic forces.
3. Neglect of Postmodernist Insights
   • Eagleton’s dismissal of postmodernist skepticism toward power and ideology may be seen as overly harsh. Critics could argue that postmodernism offers valuable insights into the fragmentation of power and the multiplicity of cultural narratives, which Eagleton seems to downplay in favor of a more unified, Marxist view of cultural production.
4. Simplistic View of Superstructure Functions
   • Eagleton’s approach to the superstructure, which he argues functions primarily to manage social contradictions in favor of the ruling class, may be viewed as reductive. Critics might claim that this overlooks the complexity and diversity of superstructural institutions, many of which may serve purposes beyond simply maintaining the status quo.
5. Lack of Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives
   • Eagleton’s analysis, like much Marxist theory, tends to focus primarily on Western capitalist societies. Some critics may point out that his framework does not sufficiently engage with non-Western or postcolonial contexts, where the relationship between base and superstructure may operate differently due to different historical and material conditions.
6. Resistance to Post-Marxist Theories
   • Eagleton’s insistence on the continued relevance of the base-superstructure model may be critiqued by those who favor post-Marxist or neo-Marxist theories, which incorporate more flexible, pluralistic approaches to culture and economics. Some might argue that Eagleton’s defense of the model is outdated in light of these more contemporary frameworks.
7. Potential for Ideological Dogmatism
   • By maintaining a strong commitment to historical materialism, Eagleton runs the risk of promoting a somewhat dogmatic approach to literary and cultural criticism. Critics may argue that his reliance on Marxist categories limits the scope of analysis, potentially excluding alternative perspectives on culture that do not fit neatly into the base-superstructure dichotomy.
8. Underdeveloped Treatment of Aesthetic Experience
   • Although Eagleton touches on the autonomy of art and culture, some critics may argue that his treatment of aesthetic experience and the role of art in society is underdeveloped. The focus on the political and economic aspects of culture may overlook the personal, emotional, and subjective dimensions of literary and artistic works.
9. Ambiguity in Defining Cultural Autonomy
   • Eagleton’s concept of “relative autonomy” may be seen as ambiguous or vague, leading to confusion about the exact relationship between culture and material conditions. Some critics may argue that he does not provide a clear enough framework for determining how and when culture can resist or transcend economic forces.

Representative Quotations from “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The base/superstructure model has something valuable to say…though this is nowadays a proportion smaller than those who believe in the Virgin Birth.”	Eagleton humorously acknowledges that the base-superstructure model is widely rejected in contemporary theory, but argues for its continued relevance. He critiques the dismissal of Marxist theory and calls for a more nuanced understanding of its contributions to analyzing culture and economics.
“Art becomes relatively autonomous of its material conditions precisely by being more firmly integrated into the economic.”	This paradoxical statement highlights Eagleton’s argument that culture gains autonomy by becoming deeply intertwined with the economic base. Art can critique its own conditions while still being economically produced, which is key to understanding culture under capitalism.
“Superstructures are necessary…because the productive activity to which these bodies give rise generates certain social contradictions.”	Here, Eagleton explains why superstructures exist in Marxist theory. They are not independent phenomena but arise from the contradictions within the economic base, helping to manage and maintain the stability of the ruling class’s interests.
“Only liberals or postmodernists can afford to be suspicious of power.”	Eagleton critiques postmodernist and liberal theorists for their abstract distrust of power, arguing that power is not inherently negative. He suggests that materialist thinkers must recognize the importance of power in shaping and sustaining cultural and social structures.
“One thing which only money can buy is of course socialism.”	This ironic statement underscores the necessity of advanced material conditions for establishing socialism. Eagleton draws on Marxist theory to argue that socialism cannot succeed without sufficient productive forces, which must be developed under capitalism.
“Culture is itself superfluity, that which is strictly surplus to biological need.”	Eagleton emphasizes that culture exists beyond mere survival needs, as something that exceeds material necessity. He argues that culture is a form of surplus, not required for basic biological functioning but essential for the richness of human life.
“A school forms part of the superstructure when it has its students salute the national flag, but not when it teaches them to tie their shoelaces.”	This quote exemplifies Eagleton’s view that not all functions of institutions are superstructural. Certain activities within institutions may serve ideological purposes, while others do not, highlighting the complexity of how the base and superstructure interact in specific contexts.
“The point of a materialist criticism, then, is to bring to the artifact a kind of double optic.”	Eagleton advocates for a materialist approach to cultural criticism that recognizes both the cultural artifact’s aesthetic value and its embeddedness in material conditions. This “double optic” involves examining how art is shaped by, and can resist, its economic context.
“Autonomy frees you from being the hired hack of the rulers, allows art to become for the first time critique.”	Eagleton discusses how the relative autonomy of art under capitalism allows it to act as a form of critique. By becoming less directly tied to state or elite control, art can offer resistance to dominant ideologies and critique the social conditions from which it emerges.
“The economic is certainly foundational in the sense that it is what most men and women, most of the time, have had to concern themselves with.”	Eagleton reinforces the Marxist argument that the economic base is foundational to human life. He asserts that material concerns have historically dominated human activity, influencing the superstructure and shaping social and cultural institutions.

Suggested Readings: “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

1. Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. Routledge, 2002.  https://www.routledge.com/Marxism-and-Literary-Criticism/Eagleton/p/book/9780415285841
2. Williams, Raymond. Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory. NLB, 1973.
3. Althusser, Louis. For Marx. Verso, 2005.
4. Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, International Publishers, 1971.
5. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981.
6. Eagleton, Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Blackwell, 1990.
7. Lukács, Georg. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. MIT Press, 1971.