Ideal superstructures
If the argument of the last chapter stands, standard readings of Marx's base/superstructure metaphor must evidently fall. Base' and ‘superstructure' cannot be consistently delineated across modes of production as exclusive, substantively defined levels’ of the social formation. This in turn undermines the possibility of erecting any general theory of the base/superstructure relation, of a causal or functional sort, since to do so presupposes the substantial character of the distinction. This, we should note, applies as much to relative autonomy' models as straightforward economic determinisms. The question then arises: what did Marx intend to convey by his use of base/superstructure imagery? For it is undeniably common in his work, if not the leitmotif it is so often taken to be.
Cohen's account may again serve as a convenient, if indirect starting-point. Unlike most Marxists, Cohen seeks to exclude Marx's forms of social consciousness’ from the superstructure, and reserve the concept for non-economic institutions'. Leaving aside the obvious question of how we might begin sensibly to describe human institutions without reference to the ideas they embody, it is difficult to reconcile this exclusion with Marx's own use of the term ‘superstructure'. At a pinch it fits the 1859 Preface, but it demonstrably conflicts with many other texts. We have already seen Engels, in his late letters, referring to the whole superstructure as ‘ideal’ or ‘idealistic' – adjectives which make little sense except as applied to forms of consciousness. This was also Marx's usage, on at least as many occasions as not.
I
82
RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION
4