Culture, Economics, and Class - A Brief Note

Culture, Economics, and Class

Constructivists are popularly seen as some of the first political theorists to question the
relationship between culture and economics. Indeed, much of their ideas concerning society
can be traced back to the postmodernist movement in philosophy, which boldly asserts that
there is no "objective reality," but rather that individuals' perceptions and beliefs shape the
way they perceive the world. With the benefit of context, it is easy to see why constructivists
are so well known for their questioning of this relationship. Though whilst they are the most
known theorists to ponder this connection, they are not the first to do so, nor are they correct
in many of their assertions.

Among the most startling of constructivists' errors is the theory that culture is the
driving force of economics. In their view, culture shapes the way in which politics and
economics function, or put simply, politics and economics are a byproduct of cultural values.
Usually in doing so they point to specific cultural traits that relate to economic matters, such
as Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which puts forth the idea
that Protestant cultural values paved the way for capitalism. Whilst arguments like these are
certainly intriguing and thought provoking, they are dubious, as proven by theorists who
wrestled with the very same issues before.

In 1926, Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci was imprisoned by the Italian fascist
regime. This imprisonment would come to be the staging grounds for much of Gramsci's
most known works, even as his health deteriorated and his death in 1937. Most notable for
this discussion is Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony. To surmise, it is the understanding
that, using the wealth and power attained through their privilege in economic and political
spheres, the ruling class(es) use their influence to propagate a culture that is beneficial to their
class interests. As he wrote in The Intellectuals, "[...]'spontaneous' consent [is] given by the
great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant
fundamental group;(1) this consent is 'historically' caused by the prestige [...] which the
dominant group enjoys because of its position [...] in the world of production."(2)

(1) Note that, due to fascist censorship, Gramsci uses the term "dominant fundamental group" to denote the ruling
class.

(2) Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., & Smith, G. N. (1971). The Intellectuals. In Selections from the prison notebooks of
Antonio Gramsci (pp. 12). essay, Lawrence and Wishart.

Thus, Gramsci, essentially preemptively corrected the constructivists' theory. Culture is
not the catalyst for the political and economic system, as constructivists argue, but rather the inverse: political and economic systems shape cultural beliefs and attitudes, which in turn uphold the former. Through Gramsci's understanding of this relationship, it then becomes much easier to explain the relationship between markets and culture. Culture is not a "background" to markets and economics, nor is it what shapes these systems, rather it is a tool that actively justifies the dominant class' interests in those areas.

How can this be seen? Constructivists have the Protestant Work Ethic to reference as an
example of their theories' applicability, so what can Gramscian Marxists point to as
evidence? Consider the attitude that "hard work pays off." It's a simple mantra that appears in
a wide variety of popular media in today's world. Whether through films such as Legally
Blonde, "inspirational" books regarding figures such as Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, or music
that encourages one to have the "spirit of a hustler," as T.I. glorifies it in the song Live your
Life, there are countless examples of this narrative in modern popular culture. All of this
media regarding this moral plays a role in instilling the value of working as much and as
thoroughly as possible.

How is this useful to the bourgeoisie? By encouraging workers to maximise their
efforts, they attain more labour for minimal costs, if any. For instance, if a worker is paid by
the hour to perform a task, by inspiring them to "work harder," they may approach their
labour with a new sense of enthusiasm, allowing either more tasks to be done per hour, or for
each task to be completed at a superior quality. In either case, the owner of the finished
products profits from more/superior products being made. The benefits multiply if the toiler
in question is instead a salary worker, as this now means that they may choose to work
beyond their agreed schedule to "go above and beyond," all whilst they are paid the same
wage and their superiors' profit grows.

It is due to phenomena like these, aided by Gramsci's explanation of their causes, that
allow for the relationships between culture, markets, and politics to become clear. All three
interpenetrate for the purpose, explicit or implicit, of legitimising the system imposed by the
ruling class onto the rest of the populace. None of them are in the "background," nor are any
of them particularly "dominant" in this regard. Rather, they are akin to a collection of tools:
each serves its own purpose in ensuring the cogs of the present hierarchy co