Page 190 - Culture Media Language Working Papers in Cultural Studies

LANGUAGE 179

political apathy in terms which could prevent the same political mistakes from
being repeated.

The superstructure and the subjective moment

The Cultural Revolution is a revolution ‘of men’s minds’. It demonstrates the
importance of ideology, considered not just as a system of ideas, a ‘behavioural
ideology’ or a ‘socializing force’ but as the practice that constructs what is often
taken as given—that is, human nature. Ideology is seen as a force which enters
into the very constitution of the individual and is therefore the area in which
changes of attitude are generated. The subjective moment is thus seen as vital for
the political struggle.
It is stressed again in Mao’s conception of the ideological struggle:
‘Ideological struggle is not like other forms of struggle. The only method to be
used in this struggle is that of painstaking reasoning and not crude coercion.’ 2
What is at stake in the Maoist understanding of the superstructure? Three
things: its sometimes determining role; the need for creative thinking within a
party, a movement; a vigilance against a return of attitudes typical of capitalist
societies.
The Cultural Revolution is the fruit of Mao’s understanding of the role of the
superstructure in the social totality. This understanding is vital for a Left
movement taken by surprise by the events of 1968, a surprise which is often
expressed but rarely learned from. The implications for Marxist political practice
are clear. Contradictions are produced between the changing nature of the
relations of production and language and thought, which often lag behind; these
contradictions can become antagonistic, as in the case of the events of May
1968. There is a space, therefore, and a necessity to activate these contradictions
within superstructural formations. The need is for a genuine politicization which
acts as a geniune corrective to all forms of leadership.
Macciocchi quotes Mao summing up this thinking of the superstructure and
showing exactly what is being challenged—the habitual attitudes, the self-
orientation of ordinary people:

‘It is thus,’ says Mao, ‘that the contradiction between the forces of
production and the relations of production, and their contradiction with the
superstructure will continue to exist in all human societies as long as there
exists a mode of production. Inside a mode of production there are
reproduced the relations of authority and subjection, of leadership and
obedience within which the capitalist relations of production are
reproduced.’ 3

A superficial glance might see this as far from the work of Althusser and of people
like Kristeva and Sollers. Their references to the Chinese experience have even
been claimed to be ‘assertions, tacked on for rhetoric’s sake’. However, this