Karl Marxs Theory in the Realm of Media - Essay Example

Karl Marx’s Theory in the Realm of Media Marxism has been an influential social theory for more than 150 years. It has given society an undeniably enhanced appreciation of history’s social dynamics and reveals many of its obscure yet significant attributes. Karl Marx theorized that the evolving ideologies of society as a whole are governed by the upper-classes. Ideologies in this context refer to the values, feelings and ideas by which people perceive their particular societies. The fundamental conceptions behind Marxism are identified as materialism, socialism and the unification of action and structure. Marx’s idealistic view of socialism involved actions that would better serve society within the realm of unselfish inspiration, a society not interested in existing social inclinations. The wealth of a nation should be divided not according to greed but to need. He sees the technological advances of the modern world as the basis for entire societies to be redistributed in accordance to the requirements of the upper class. Marx theorized that the upper-class controls the formation and definition of these ideologies so as to prevent people in the lower-class from knowing how society truly operates. For example, literature was used to form social ideology in eighteenth century England. Today, literature has been replaced by the media. This discussion will introduce Marx’s social theories and then investigate how they are put into practice within the media by analyzing the film Trading Places with Eddie Murphy and Dan Ackroyd. The central concepts of Marxist economics include the theory of labour value, the disposition of production and the inevitable conflicts between the classes. Conflicts will always persist because the upper class can never totally control the lower classes. Lesser concepts include the idea of increased misery, the obsession with possessions and the consequences of economic alienation. Marx’s theories of labour value combined with his concepts of capitalism endeavour to clarify how the revenue system operates to the benefit of the upper classes and the detriment of the lower classes. Marx defines wealth as something produced by labour from resources originating in the natural world. In terms of capitalism, wealth becomes a vast accrual of possessions. Commodities are articles of wealth created solely as a means to exchange other objects so as to enhance wealth. The instruments of production such as factories, railroads and land are considered capital when they are employed to exploit human labour in order to enhance profits. Money is capital in the purest form. The Marxist conflict theory views capitalist production as an essential element of class struggle. A social class consists of individuals grouped in relation to their ability to produce wealth and in their shared relationship to those that own the production methods. “For Marx and Engels the class struggle between the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the proletariat (working class) is the great lever of modern social change” (Knox, 1988: 160). Marxism theorizes that as capitalism persists, it exacerbates the misery level for working class individuals. The level of working class misery is termed only in relation to the distance between them and the capitalist classes and not meant to imply all persons of labour are necessarily unhappy. “… although the enjoyments of the worker have risen, the social satisfaction that they give has fallen in comparison with the increased enjoyments of the capitalist … Our desires and pleasures spring from society, we measure them, therefore, by society and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction” (Marx & Engels, 1968). Marx’s theory of ideology included a great deal of thought on the disparity between the essence of capitalism as it compared or contrasted with the reality of capitalism. According to Cohen (2000), the essence of capitalism consists of the fact that the expenditure of labour creates economic value in proportion to the amount of labour expended, but workers do not receive the entire value of what they produce. Those in power enjoy the profits gained by this surplus value that the worker is not paid which is the only form of investment that truly creates profit. However, the appearance of capitalism is that an object is worth what it can be exchanged for in the market. Therefore, workers appear to be paid for all of their efforts, while capital is seen to create profit. This difference between the essence or reality of capitalism and the appearance of capitalism is what Marx referred to as ‘commodity fetishism.’ “’Commodity fetishism’ is the vision of objective value in commodities, especially money, as the commodity of exchange. Under a society with exchange, the only way people can gauge value is during the exchange process … The cause of this commodity festishism is the nature of the exchange process. The result is that some aspects of the appearance of society are the ‘inverse’ of its essence.” (Webb 1998). With this inherent contradiction glaringly in place, it becomes the job of ideology to hide the essence of society that contradicts the appearance of society that is promoted by and benefits those in power. However, Marx did not intend to suggest that the ruling class had a kind of conspiracy running to keep the masses deceived into working for them. Rather, he suggested that the ruling class is equally subject to the illusions and appearances of the production process. “If the essence of society were not hidden, not only would the workers feel resentment at being exploited, but also the exploiters would lack the composure for confident rule” (Webb 1998). This translates into media analysis as it is through the media institutions that these belief systems are developed and maintained, continuously redefining roles to be in keeping with the prevailing ideology in spite of changing times and realizations. Analyzing the media from this perspective shows these institutions as being equally “locked into the power structure, and consequently as acting largely in tandem with the dominant institutions in society. The media thus reproduced the viewpoints of dominant institutions not as one among a number of alternate perspectives, but as the central and ‘obvious’ or ‘natural’ perspective” (Curran et al 1982). It can be seen then, that the media is given the power and the task of “renewing, amplifying and extending the existing predispositions that constitute the dominant culture, not in creating them” (Curran et al 1982). At the same time, the media is the one place wherein competing class views can be safely fought out and resolved, usually to the benefit of the existing prevalent ideology. “Ultimate control is increasingly concentrated in monopoly capital; media professionals, while enjoying the illusions of autonomy, are socialized into and internalize the norms of the dominant culture. The media, taken as a whole, relay interpretive frameworks consonant with the interest of the dominant classes, and media audiences, while sometimes negotiating and contesting these frameworks, lack ready access to alternative meaning systems that would enable them to reject the definitions offered by the media in favour of oppositional definitions” (Curran & Gurevitch 1977). To gain an idea of how this ideology actually applies in the working world, it is helpful to take a closer look at a representative film such as Trading Places. The movie opens making the distinction between classes as it displays credits on a changing backdrop depicting scenes of opulence and privilege being conducted by mostly white men and scenes of abject poverty filled with mostly black men. One of the most impacting scenes in this opening montage involves the juxtaposition of the newspaper on the doorstep. This icon of American life is seen neatly folded and awaiting the fully suited butler to collect it from the doorstep of a neat and trim brownstone. It is also seen scattered across the doorstep of a run-down tenement building, partially covering the sleeping black man who has obviously been using it as his only source of warmth as he slept through the night. Viewers are also treated to images of groups of black men gathered around a fire lit inside a trashcan, gathering what warmth they can as they drink their breakfast from out of cans or bottles hidden within brown paper bags. This is seen in direct opposition to the image of the butler, now wearing a crisp white chef’s hat, as he carefully prepares an elaborate breakfast of freshly squeezed orange juice and delicately warmed croissants, placing all on a tray with a flower to take up to his master. This brief opening montage immediately establishes and reinforces the traditional viewpoints held by a great deal of American society – that of the rich white man and the poor black man, allowing no meeting ground to exist between the two. The film places a large degree of emphasis upon social class and status, again reinforcing the traditionally held ideology that material wealth is the ultimate goal which can only be obtained by allowing capital to create wealth, thus reinforcing the appearance of capitalism and obscuring the reality. Significantly, while Billy Ray is seen as a jobless beggar on the streets at the opening of the movie, Louis Winthorpe’s life seems hardly more disturbed by actual work than Billy Ray’s. The difference is that Winthorpe has learned how to make money work for him while Billy Ray allows money to flow through his fingers. Coleman, the butler, is obviously in a subservient position to many of the characters involved in the main action, and is rarely allowed to express his own personality, thereby presenting the impression that because of his social class, none of his opinions actually matter. The flambé dessert he makes is dismissed out of hand when Louis and Penelope retire to the fireplace following dinner and the Dukes casually order him to take part in the great experiment that will change everyone’s life. Nevertheless, Coleman does have opinions of his own, referring to the Dukes as scumbags when he learns of their plan and treating Billy Ray with a certain compassion, advising him to “just be yourself. Whatever else happens, they can’t take that away from you.” Likewise, Ophelia, the prostitute who ends up helping Louis after his gigantic fall, demonstrates a similar strength of character, working on a plan to retire from her profession and get out of the rat race altogether. Yet, she is readily disparaged as an unworthy individual based solely on the merits of her profession by most who come into contact with her. Even Winthorpe, in discussing work-related issues with the Dukes and on the verge of becoming a part of the family, is casually and coldly dismissed when the Dukes are not ready to discuss an issue, firmly putting him in his social place beneath them. Thus, while the movie serves to underline the accepted social structure that provides obviously wealthy individuals with the highest status, it also provides the loophole that encourages the working class to continue to struggle, always working to try to gain the toehold necessary to allow capital to create capital, completely buying into Marx’s perception of capitalism rather than the reality that it is through the efforts of this labor that the wealthy remain so. Although the film appears to be displaying a story of how the common man can rise above the current trappings of the capitalistic society, the fact that Billy Ray, Louis Winthorpe, Ophelia and Coleman all resort to the exact kind of lifestyle led by the ultra elite upon the conclusion of the movie only serves to reinforce the currently held ideology, serving to support, rather than refute, the validity of the perception rather than the reality. In Trading Places, the men don’t make the money, the money makes the money. This can be seen in that neither Billy Ray nor Louis Winthorpe are seen often in a working capacity, yet the one who seems to be working hardest remains Billy Ray. The only difference is who’s in charge of the money. Black men are not allowed to be in control of the money as is shown by Billy Ray’s dependence on first the Dukes, then Louis Winthorpe, to achieve success. Servants are not allowed to be in control of the money as is shown by Coleman’s inability to disagree with the Duke’s callous experiment and instead to be an active part of the game. Women are not allowed to be in control of the money as is shown by Penelope’s inability to care for herself in any capacity and Ophelia’s need to resort to crime to support herself as well as her dependence upon Winthorpe to get her out of the life she’s been living. Thus, the illusion that money makes money and that only white males are capable of creating this profitable effect is reinforced even while the reality that it is the workers who create capital is supported by the encouragement the movie offers the common man – the concept that even servants, black men and women of all races might attain their goals once in a while if they can figure out how to navigate through the capitalist maze. Marx’s writings showed he was concerned about the outcomes of capitalism. It has been more than a century and a half since Marx’s writing and capitalism has evolved considerably since that time, though structurally, not fundamentally. This system remains one of an exploitative nature. The production of commodities still alienates people from what is produced and in a very real sense from themselves as well. It can be reasonably suggested that Marxism is concerned more for the alienation factor present in capitalism than the uneven distribution of wealth inherent in the system and the impoverished conditions that results. This is not to imply that Marxist thought is not concerned with the depravation and suffering that comes from poverty but to illustrate Marx’s profound apprehensions regarding the reduced quality of existence that capitalism is responsible for. For example, consider the sensationalistic news programmes that seek revenue over critical, thoughtful information. Marx garnered widespread popularity by being a vocal advocate of workers in their fight for higher wages and better working conditions. Marx and Engels wrote very persuasively in the Communist Manifesto appealing for rebellious actions against the bourgeoisie. “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing society and political order of things” (Marx & Engels, 1952: 94). The rebellions referred to in the Manifesto call for mass actions against the nobility. This should not be confused with uprisings relating to the bread riots or trade union activism. It speaks to functions in a broader social context. In keeping with today’s terminology and social avenues, it might look more like an extreme makeover of Hollywood’s greatest hits. Only by promoting more socialized or cooperative social structures through the media can the inherent ideology of our capitalist age begin to be changed at the fundamental levels where change needs to happen. Not by brutal war, but by plot shifts and value recreation can a more equitable, sustainable system be brought into existence. References Cohen, Gerald A. (2000). Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense. Expanded Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Curran, James and Gurevitch, Michael. (1977) Mass Communication and Society. London: Edward Arnold. Curran, James; Gurevitch, Michael & Woollacott, Janet. (1982) “The Study of the Media: Theoretical Approaches.” Culture, Society and the Media. T. Bennett, J. Curran, M. Gurevitch, & J. Woollacott (Eds.). London: Routledge. Knox, E. (August 1988). “Marx, Class and Socialism.” Socialist Standard. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (n.d.). The German Ideology. W. Lough and C. P. Magill (Trans.). R. Pascal (Ed.). New York: International Publishers, p. 69. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1952 ed.) Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow. Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. (1958). Manifesto of the Communist Party. London and Moscow: Lawrence & Wishart and Progress. Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. (1968). “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Trading Places. (1983). [DVD]. Hollywood, CA: Paramount. Webb, Matt. (11 June 1998). “Marxism.” Interconnected. Retrieved 21 November 2007 from Read More